¢ beehbOeO T9dT E
X ey
THE LIBRARY
of
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY
Toronto
2 ky i" (y v ay
mitt ¥ RHO a : hp ti
aly seh
ve a Wes }
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2006 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation
THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
LONDON + BOMBAY - CALCUTTA - MADRAS
MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK + BOSTON + CHICAGO
DALLAS + ATLANTA + SAN FRANCISCO
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
OF CANADA, LIMITED
TORONTO
ed
THE BEGINNINGS
OF CHRISTIANITY
PAKYT I
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
EDITED BY
F. J. FOAKES JACKSON, D.D.
AND
KIRSOPP LAKE, D.D., D.Lirr.
VOL. V
ADDITIONAL NOTES
TO THE COMMENTARY
EDITED BY
KIRSOPP LAKE, D.D., D.Lirt.
AND
HENRY J. CADBURY, Px.D.
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTIN’S STREET, LONDON
1933
EMMANUEL
COPYRIGHT
ob eee
One
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
BY R. & R, CLARK, LIMITED, EDINBURGH
TO
FRANCIS CRAWFORD BURKITT
£3 ae
bed ,:
; ag ;
“ae eis, ed viet :
a ae ' ‘oll |
PREFACE
More than twenty years have elapsed since Kirsopp Lake and I
agreed in a conversation in the University of Leiden that an
exhaustive study of the Acts of the Apostles was necessary in
order to prepare for a right understanding of the history of the
Christian Church. We had arrived at the conclusion that, despite
the noble labours of many generations of scholars, and the light
thrown on the book by antiquarians, the real problem of Acts
as an historical even more than a religious document had to
be faced. Impressed by the magnitude of the task, we resolved
to secure the aid of the most competent scholars we could
command. We were fortunate in securing the support of Messrs.
Macmillan and Co. as publishers, for whose generosity in pro-
ducing these volumes without regard to anything but to the
excellence of the work we can never be sufficiently grateful.
Our undertaking began in Cambridge, where I was fortunate
enough to obtain the co-operation of Professor Burkitt, who
consented to preside at a Seminar, which was largely attended by
scholars of the most varied interests in the University, not only
theological, but historical, classical, mathematical, and Oriental.
Visitors were often present from Oxford, London, and different
parts of England ; and, as the minutes kept by me as Secretary
of the Seminar show, the United States and Canada were not
unrepresented. Lake paid frequent visits from Leiden, where he
held a professorial chair, to watch the progress of our delibera-
tions. This preparatory work went on for a year or more, then
came the War; and Lake and I, who had found spheres of work
vu
viii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
in America, selected a body of coadjutors and began the task of
compiling the first volume in Boston and New York.
The task before us had now become an international enter-
prise. In our group Great Britain, Holland, Canada, the United
States and Germany co-operated. Jew and Gentile showed equal
zeal in assisting us. To mention some of the names of the living
friends who helped us might be invidious ; but in the course of
twenty years it is inevitable that some should have already passed
away. Among these we may mention one who never hesitated
to place his vast fund of learning at our disposal, and spared no
time nor pains in assistance and advice. To George Foot Moore,
Professor in Harvard University, the Editors owe a debt which
it is not possible to exaggerate, and the same may be said of
Frederick Conybeare, Hon. Fellow of University College, Oxford.
The other contributors to the first three volumes, who are now
no longer with us, are C. W. Emmet, Fellow of the same Uni-
versity College, Oxford; Forbes Duckworth, Professor of Trinity
College, Toronto, and Clifford H. Moore, Pope Professor of Latin in
Harvard University, whose early deaths all who knew and appre-
‘ciated them must deplore. Of those who attended the Seminar in
Cambridge, two scholars, Israel Abrahams, the University Reader
in Talmudic, and Arthur Charles Jennings of Jesus College, are no
longer with us. Their advice and help whilst the scheme was in
process of development was of the greatest value to the Editors.
To those who happily are still alive, I—and my colleague is in
cordial sympathy with me—desire to express heartfelt gratitude,
not only for the zeal and scholarship displayed in their contribu-
tions, but for their readiness to accept the suggestions necessary
to reduce the whole work to a consistent whole.
The first and second volumes, which are introductory to the
study of Acts, appeared respectively in 1920 and 1922. Volume I.
provoked a certain amount of criticism, mainly on account of
what appeared to some the detached attitude in which a book of
Holy Scripture was approached in a thoroughly scientific spirit.
Volume III., on the Text of Acts, was entrusted by the Editors to
PREFACE ix
one man; and they were singularly fortunate in securing their
friend James Hardy Ropes of Harvard University for the purpose.
The Text of Acts, as every scholar knows, is one of the most
interesting problems, not only in the New Testament, but in
textual criticism generally, and it is not too much to say that,
if this costly book can never appeal to the general public, no
student of Greek mss. can safely neglect it ; and that although it
may be hereafter supplemented, it is not likely ever to be super-
seded. Volume III. appeared in 1926 and deservedly received
the approval of the learned world.
There remained only the Commentary on Acts, the manage-
ment of which Dr. Lake took entirely on his own shoulders, and
he has, much to my satisfaction, received invaluable assistance
from our mutual friend Dr. Henry Cadbury as co-editor. For
this they were, in my judgement, admirably fitted; and it is a
matter for sincere congratulation that they have brought their
arduous task to a conclusion. Their two volumes mark the
culmination of years of strenuous labour. Judged solely by
the extent of the Commentary, and the variety of information
contained therein, no book of the Bible has been subjected to so
exhaustive a treatment in a single work; and its Editors are
worthy of the highest commendation for a splendid achieve-
ment I, as their friend and colleague, am delighted to add my
congratulations.
F. J. FOAKES JACKSON
Union THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY,
New YorK,
September 1932.
Ls Ae at 3 eae. teh PEN 0
: et) nant adap: Sie | st! se
‘ “terdh {ee a) mur we
:
oan onding Lava
| 7
1 Le era fa
vie
Danny OE baits
ka
as,
A20 e .
a pONY Say yess
aaah
® Avwie oa x pha Oy
pin :*
be
NOTE
VIL.
VEEL
IX.
CONTENTS
‘
. THE PREFACE TO ACTS AND THE COMPOSITION oF AcTs.
By Kirsorp LAKE:
1. The Text of the Preface and its Relation to the Gospel
2. The Absence of a dé-clause
3. The Composition of Acts
. Tun CoMMAND NOT TO LEAVE JERUSALEM AND THE
‘GALILEAN TRADITION.’ By Krirsopp Lake
. Tue Ascension. By Kirsopp LAKE
. Tue Deatu oF JupDAs. By Krirsopp LAKE
. Maptvs. By Roszrt P. Casry, Ph.D., Professor of History
and Philosophy of Religions, University of Cincinnati
. Toe TWELVE AND THE AposTLES. By Kirsopp LAKE:
1. The Twelve A
2. The Names of the Peas”
3. The Word AzdaroXos
4. The Apostles in Acts
Tur HELLENISTS. By Henry J. CADBURY
PROSELYTES AND GOD-FEARERS. By Kirsopp LAKE .
(i.) The Requirements made from Converts
(ii.) The Names used for Converts
(iii.) The Evidence for Syncretistic Cults .
Tue Hoty Spreir. By Kirsopp Lake .
. Tae Girt oF THE SPIRIT ON THE Day OF PENTECOST.
By Kirsopp Lake:
1. The Opinion of the Writer
2. The Facts, the Source of Acts, and the Editor
. Taz Name, BarrismM, AND THE LayING ON OF HANDs.
By Sitva New, A.M.
xi
PAGE
111
116
121
xu
NOTE
THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
XII. Tue Communism or AcTs I. AND IV.-VI. AND THE AP-
POINTMENT OF THE SEVEN. By Krirsorpp Lake
XIII.
XIV.
XXVI.
XXXVI.
XXVIII.
Smion Maaus. By Rosert P. Casry
PavL AND THE Maaus. By Artuur Darsy Nock, M.A.,
Professor of the History of Religion, Harvard University
. THE CONVERSION OF PAUL AND THE EVENTS IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING IT. By Krirsopp Lake
. Tue ApostoLic CouNCcIL oF JERUSALEM. By Kirsopp
LAKE.
. Pavw’s Controversies. By Krirsorp Laks
. Pavt’s Route in Asta Minor. By Krirsorp Lake:
i" Perga—Antioch—Iconium
2. Lystra—Derbe
3. The Route of Paul’s ‘ Third J ourney ’
. THE UnkNown Gop. By Kirsopp Lake:
(i.) Heathen Analogies .
(ii.) Christian Exegesis
. ‘Your own Poets.” By Krrsorp LAKE
. ARTEMIS OF EPHEsvs. By Lity Ross Taytor, Ph.D.,
Professor of Latin, Bryn Mawr College .
. THe Astarcus. By Lity Ross Taytor.
. THe Micuican Papyrus Fraament 1571. By Sinva
NEw .
. Dust AND GARMENTS. By Henry J. CapBury
. THE PoLicy OF THE EARLY RoMAN EMPERORS TOWARDS
JupAisM. By Vincent M. Scramuzza, Ph.D., Assistant
Professor of History, Smith College
Roman Law AND THE TRIAL OF PavuL. By Henry J.
CaDBURY ‘
I. Under Arrest by Claudius liptiie ‘
II. In Custody under the Procurators
III. The Appeal to Caesar
IV. The Outcome of the Action nisin Paul
Tue Winps. By Kirsorp Laxe and Henry J. CapBuRY
‘Yro(wpara. By Henry J. CapBury
PAGE
CONTENTS
XXIX. Tue Tittzs or Jusus 1n Acts. By Henry J. CapBury
XXX. NAMES FOR CHRISTIANS AND CHRISTIANITY IN Acts. By
Henry J. CADBURY :
XXXI. THE Summarizs 1n Acts. By Henry J. CapBury
XXX. THe SpEEcHES In Acts. By Hunry J. CapBury
XXXII. THe Roman Army. By T. R. S. Brovenron, Ph.D.,
Associate Professor of Latin, Bryn Mawr College :
(i.) The Organization of the Roman Army in the First
Century ,
(ii.) The Roman Army in = ait Palewiine ‘
(iii.) Three Passages in Acts of Special Difficulty
/XXXIV. Tor Curonotocy or Acts. By Kirsorp Lak
I. The Death of Herod Agrippa I.
II. The Famine in the Time of Claudius
III. The Proconsulship of Sergius Paulus
IV. The Edict of Claudius ERS the Jews ore
Rome
V. The Proconsulship of Gallio .
VI. The Procuratorship of Porcius Festus
Conclusions
XXXV. LocaLiTIES IN AND NEAR JERUSALEM MENTIONED IN
Aots. By Krirsorp LAKE ‘
1. The Mount of Olives and Bethany . :
. The Upper Room and the Tomb of David
. The Court-room of the Sanhedrin
. The Prisons mentioned in Acts
. The Roman Barracks
. The Beautiful Gate
XXXVI. THe Famity TREE or THE HeERops. By Henry J.
CADBURY
aoa pp WwW dD
XXXVII. Luctus or Cyrene. By Henry J. Cappury
Inprex I. Piaces, NamMzs, AND SUBJECTS
InpEx II. Quorations :
(a) Old and New Testaments .
(6) Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old iGeclonsat
(c) Rabbinic Writings .
(d) Classical and Early Christian Writers
427
431
44]
445
446
452
455
459
460
464
467
474
475
476
477
478
478
479
487
489
499
519
533
534
534
xiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
Inprex III. PALAEOGRAPHICAL AND EPIGRAPHICAL:
PAGE
(a) Inscriptions . 542
(6) Papyri a é 544
(c) Biblical Apparatus Criticus 544
Inpex IV. Greek Worps 545
Inpex V. Semitic Worps anp TERMS 548
Collotype of Micntcan Papyrus 1571 . : Between 264 and 265
GENEALOGICAL TaBLE . ‘ : ‘ ‘ . To face 488
Map of Asta Minor. : : , : End of volume
ADDITIONAL NOTES
Nore I. THe Prerack to Acts AND THE CoMPosITION or Acts
By Krrsopp LAKE
Tue difficulties in the Preface to Acts are a complex of literary, critical, The Preface.
and textual problems which must be treated separately before being
considered finally in relation to each other. Clearness therefore demands
a summary before any detailed discussion.
The Preface certainly begins with a description of the contents of
the ‘first book’—the Gospel according to Luke—but as it stands at
present it gives a very imperfect summary, and alludes to a period of
forty days of which the Gospel gives no hint. Moreover, the text of
the Preface has obviously suffered in transmission, and though some of
the details remain obscure, in two or three of the efforts to improve it
attempts can be recognized to deal with the difficulty of interpretation.
Whatever text and whatever interpretation be adopted the structure
of the Preface offends against the canons of Greek writing. The pév
in vs. 1 is not balanced by a 8é-clause, nor by any adequate substitute
for 5é, and there is no description of the subjects to be dealt with in the
second book, as custom would have dictated and the opening of the Preface
leads us to expect.
When these two problems have been discussed—they cannot be
settled—the main question is the light, or possibly the darkness, which
they throw on the composition of the whole book.
1. The Text of the Preface and its Relation to the Gospel
The Preface obviously is intended to give a description of the The text.
first book. If jpéaro be not wholly otiose the first verse of Acts means
‘I wrote the first book concerning all which Jesus did and taught from
the beginning,’ which is a fair description of the beginning of the Gospel,
even though John the Baptist is omitted ; similarly the second verse
describes the end of the Gospel ‘ until the day when, etc.’ The problem
is how much is covered by the ‘etc.’ and how far it really corresponds
to the Gospel, and these questions are greatly complicated by doubt as
to the original text.
The text of the Preface, according to B, followed by most editors, is The neutral
Tov pav mparov Adyov éronrdpnv Tepi wavrwv, & Oeddure, Sv yp~aro "ee
*Incots ouiv te Kal SiddoKev axpe As npépas evterAdpevos ois
VOL. V 1 B
2 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
droordous dud TvEbparos dyiov ovs efehéeEaro avedn pen: ois Kal
Taperrygev éavrov (ovra pera. 70 maGeiv avTov €v modAois TeKpnpiols,
&e Tpepov. p omravopevos adrois Kal A€yov Ta Tept Tis Baorr<ias Tow
€ov. Kal ovvaifopevos mapiry yerhev avrois did ‘TeporoAtpuv pa
xopifer Oa, adda. Tepupevelv THhv erayyeXiav Tov TaTpds Vv HKovaaTE
pov’ ote ‘Twdvvys pev Barrurev dart, ipeis 8é ev rvedpart Barre
The Western TOjoerGe ayiy od pera todas Tatras ipépas. The Western text,
text,
The original
text.
Eusebius.
partly reconstructed from the Latin, seems to have been rdv pev mporov
Adyov éxounrapny wept ravtwv, & Oeddirc, dv HpEaro "Incovs roreiv te
kat SiddoKew év jpépg jp? Tovs dmoardAous e€eAEato Sia rvedparos
dyiov kal éxédevoe Kynpiooev Td evayyéALov, ois Kal mapeotnoe KTH.
... kal @s ovvadifopevos per aitav tapiyyeAev KtA. Ropes (see
Vol. III. pp. 2 and 256 ff.) accepts the major variants of the Western text
as representing the original.
On such a complicated question disagreement is not unnatural
among even the closest allies, and this is one of relatively few places in
which I differ from Ropes, though the difference is small and unim-
portant for the theory of the history of the text. It has, however, a
more serious bearing on the exegesis of the passage. I cannot think
that év 7 pepe for dxpu is epas or the omission of ots after
drooréAots is original. éfeAéfaro can, it seems to me, refer only to
Luke vi. 13 ff., and the Gospel neither began nor ended at that point.
Therefore ovs must be retained before ¢£eAéEaro, Similarly, in a
preface to the second book the important point 1 to be noticed is that
which was reached at the end of the first, so that & aX pu is essential to the
sense, On the other hand, Ropes is surely right in omitting from his
reconstruction of the original text the Neutral interpolation dveAjppOn,
and in treating the Western xai éxéXevoe kyptocew Td ebayyédvov
as merely a paraphrase of evrevAdjevos. If so, the main verb in the sen-
tence beginning aypu 7s nuépas is mapyyyecAc in vs. 4. That this makes
a very bad sentence cannot be denied, but in one important point it is
apparently confirmed by Eusebius, Supplementa Quaestionum ad Marinum
xi. (Migne, P.G. xxii. col. 1005) evOev . . . éirnpe? A€ywv ws apa Se
neEpOV TeroapdKkovTa, drTavdpevos avTots Kal cvvavArlopevos, TA Tepl
THs Bactr<eias Tod Oeod rapedidov pabipara, rapyver TE Opyav eis THY
“Iepoveadnp, kaKxet knpirrewv lovdaiow rpwtois Tov Adyov pyde mpdTepov
dvaxwpeiv THs ToAews kTA. This certainly seems to prove that Eusebius
read érravépevos and ovvavAr(épevos as linked together, But if so he
must have treated rapéorynoe as the main verb to these participles, and
mapiyyetAe in vs. 4 as the main verb of évretAdpevos, though of course
an element of doubt is brought in by the way in which he is paraphrasing.
His text may have run thus:
Tov pev mpirov Adyov erounrdpay mept mdvrov, ® Ocddire, dv
np&ato “Inoots roveiy Te Kat SiSdoker a axpe Fs 7) 7pEpas, évrevAdpevos Tots
amoorToAots, Sua rvetpatos ayiov ods efeeEaTto, (ois Kal rapéorynoev
1 This, however, is not quite certain ; the evidence is only Latin, and there
is a bare possibility that the translator regarded dyp as equivalent to ‘in.’
Cf. xxvii. 33.
Be: THE TEXT OF THE PREFACE 3
éavrov (Ovta peta 7d Tabeiv adrdv év wodAois Texpmpiors, Sv pepav
TeroepdKovra orravopevos avtois Kal A€eywv TA Tepi THS Bacrreias Tod
Geod kal ovvavAr(dpevos avrois), rapiyyetAev awd “lepocodAvpwv pur)
xwpifer Oat, KrX.
No one who has read much of Eusebius will think that he would
have found this construction too complicated, as it is simplicity itself
compared to many passages in his own writings. It is hard to think
that it can be the finally revised text of any Greek writer, but on
objective grounds it seems to me to be the earliest form, which explains
the others. With it the summary goes down to vs. 5, but is obscure.
It was interpreted and emended in two ways:
(i.) The makers of the Neutral text, influenced by the Neutral text Early
of Luke xxiv, 51, or perhaps more probably by the interpretation reg
(probably correct) of Sueorn as meaning avepépero, inserted dveAjupOn in
vs. 2. They probably intended to make the description of the first book
end with vs. 2, thus avoiding the difficulty that the ‘first book’ says
nothing about the forty days, though it is still just possible to treat the
summary as extending to vs. 5.
(ii.) The Western text in the form found in Africa wished to make it
clear that the summary extended to vs. 5, but covered only the end of
the ‘first book,’ and therefore inserted a quomodo (=«s%) before con-
versatus est (= cvvads(duevos). But it also straightened out the obscurity
of the construction by omitting ots, paraphrasing évrecAdpevos into et
praecepit praedicare evangelium, and changing axpu into tn die quo. Thus
this commentator interpreted évresAdwevos e€eA€EaTo as an allusion to
Luke xxiv. 47 f., a view which would be tolerable only if érounodpunv
could mean I ended.
The other variants—and they are many—seem to be conflations of
these interpretations and texts, in which sometimes text and sometimes
interpretation takes the lead.
If the text suggested be right, the meaning is that the ‘ first book *The original
described all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning up to the sa
day when he told the disciples not to leave Jerusalem. The narrative
begins again in vs. 6 with of péev otv . . ., which is the real beginning
of the second book. This presents two difficulties: (a) It implies
that the ‘forty days’ is mentioned in the ‘first book.’ This difficulty
was probably perceived by the makers of the Neutral text, and influenced
the emendation which they made. There seems to be no solution to
this problem, for even if the Neutral text be right, the historical, even if
not the literary, difficulty remains, (b) It does not really cover the end
of the Gospel as we have it now. The question, however, may well be
raised whether the first book ended in quite the same way as the present
text of the Gospel. It is quite possible that when the first book was
separated from the second, and converted by Marcion into ‘the Gospel,’
or by Catholics into ‘the Gospel according to Luke,’ it was felt necessary
to add a few words, bringing it to a more suitable end. Therefore Luke
xxiv. 50-53, summarizing Acts i. 6 ff, was added. . It is true that there
is nothing un-Lucan in the language of Luke xxiv. 50-53, but it is not
pev :
solitarium.
Norden and
Loisy.
Loisy.
Roo THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY wore
hard to write in any given style for a few lines, and the suggestion made
would bring the first book into closer though not complete accord with
the author’s statement of its contents,
2. The Absence of a Se-Clause
The absence of a Sé-clause describing the contents of the second
book has often been noted. But this in itself is not really the most
serious point ; <v solitwrium is not unknown in Greek, and among those
unaccustomed to literary composition it would obviously be as common
an idiom in Greek as ‘first’ without a ‘secondly’ is in English.
Examples in Acts of pév solitartwm can be found in (a) Acts iii. 13,
for the d5€ in vss, 14 and 15 are not correlatives to the pév in vs. 13,
the real answer to it coming only in vs. 18 ; (0) iniii. 20 f. kai drooreiAy
Tov mpokexetpirpevov bpiv Xpurrdv Iycody, ov Sei ovpavdv pev déEar Gar
axpt Xpovwv droxatactdcews KTX., and (c) in xxvii. 21. With these
may be compared Rom. iii. 2 and 1 Thess. ii. 18. Thus the mere
idiom of pév solitarium does not necessarily prove that a dé-clause
has been omitted, or even that it was ever contemplated by the author,
The important point is that the general usage of prefaces demands that
after a pév-clause giving the contents of the previous book there should
be a déclause giving a summary of what the second book is intended
to contain. And this is lacking. Nevertheless the fact that this defect
is not remedied in any of the ancient revisions of the text suggests that
early Christian writers were not sensitive to it. ;
3. The Composition of Acts
These two problems provide the starting-point of the school of com-
mentators who suggest that an original work by Luke has been greatly
mutilated and interpolated by a later editor. A very elaborate and
thorough exposition of this school of thought is to be found in Norden’s
Agnostos Theos, but it has been developed, and in some points improved,
by A. Loisy in his Les Actes des Apétres. The difficulty of giving a sym-
pathetic hearing to their case is that they are obliged to attempt a
reconstruction of a mutilated text, and in criticizing the details of the
reconstruction we lose sight of the solid reasons for thinking that the
text is mutilated. Norden thinks that a later editor cut out the original
dé-clause because Luke claimed to have been an eye-witness. Loisy
thinks that the original document emphasized the importance of Paul,
and spoke of him in the Preface in the déclause which described the
contents of the second book; but the editor wished to emphasize the
apostles rather than Paul, cut out the dé-clause altogether, and added
some rather clumsily constructed phrases about the appearances of Jesus
to the apostles.
Of these two the theory of Loisy seems to me preferable. But I
1 Earlier advocates of this view are Hilgenfeld, and especially A. Gercke
(Hermes xxix, (1894) pp. 373 ff.).
I THE TEXT OF THE PREFACE 5
cannot accept it, for it seems to me very improbable that a Greek editor
would have allowed the Preface to go forth in its edited form without a
5é-clause if as a matter of fact it had originally had one. The absence
of a déclause is offensive to anyone who knows classical Greek. If
the Preface ever had a déclause, no one would have merely cut it out.
Indeed, if the original text was at all the same as it is now, to add
a 6é-clause is the first thing which would be expected of an editor.
Therefore I incline to believe that the Preface—apart from textual
variation—is preserved in its original form, and that it never had a
dé-clause. I should prefer the theory that the finishing touches
(certainly including the description of the second book) were never
given to Acts, rather than accept the view of large changes introduced
by a later editor.
It requires so few words to state this opinion, and there is really so
little evidence, that it is necessary to stress the extreme importance
of the point. There is no doubt that the absence of a dé-clause is
very strange. It must be due to the original bad style of the author,
or to deliberate excision. If it has actually been cut out, or, in other
words, if we can really be sure that the wey in verse 1 proves that
there was once a 6é-clause, there is really a strong presumption in
favour of Loisy’s general theory that in Acts we must distinguish
the original work of the author from that of an interpolating and
mutilating editor. The difference between this theory and that adopted
in Vol. II. pp. 130 ff. is important, but rather more subtle than appears
at first.
According to the theory which I adopted in Vol. II. Acts is built up The theory
out of earlier documents, Greek or Aramaic, fully worked over by the % 8°
editor of Acts and moulded into his own reconstruction of the history
of the Church. We can sometimes see that his sources told a rather
different story, but there is very little question as to what he wished
to say himself. The story as told is clear and intelligible ; our only
reason for ever doubting it is that for Luke’s first volume his main
source—the Gospel of Mark—shows that he edited it so freely that the
meaning was sometimes changed, and for his second volume the Pauline
epistles indicate that the real course of events considerably differed
from his account. The suggestion made is that a study of Luke’s
editorial methods shows that he was capable of modifying his sources,
and that the Pauline epistles prove that his version of events is not
wholly accurate. If, therefore, there are difficulties or inconsistencies
in Acts in passages where neither Mark nor Paul supplies a ‘ control,’ it
is not irrational to ask if these may not be due to Luke’s treatment of
his source.
Loisy, on the other hand, thinks that Acts was once a much more
consistent and better written book than it is now. Much of the text as
it stands is interpolated, and the editor who made these changes was on
important points at variance with the original author.
The difficulty of comparing and choosing between these theories is
that again and again Loisy and I are in real agreement as to the actual
The mean-
ing of the
author of
Acts.
Loisy’s evi-
dence.
6 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
facts. There is a fundamental difference between us as to the literary
history of Acts but only, as it were, accidental differences as to the
nature and history of the early Church. Moreover, if my suspicion
be well founded that Acts was never quite finished, the difference
between us as to the literary history resolves itself into the distinction
between a book which has inequalities because it has been tampered with,
and one which has inequalities because it has not been adequately
Tevised.
The argument which seems to me to weigh the balance down against
Loisy is that apart from the Preface, which is the strongest argument in
his favour, there seems so clear a line of development running through
the earlier chapters that it is hard to ascribe any of them to an inter-
polator. As I read Acts the meaning of the author in chapters i.-v. is
quite clear. The disciples, after witnessing the Ascension, were gathered
together in Jerusalem under the leadership of the Twelve, of whom Peter
was the chief. They completed the number of the Apostolic college by
electing Matthias, and shortly after received the gift of the Holy Spirit.
This enabled them to speak with tongues and prophesy, and many converts
were added to their number. A little later Peter and John used the
name of Jesus to perform a miracle of healing at the Beautiful gate of
the Temple, and were summoned before the Sanhedrin on this charge,
but dismissed with an injunction not to use the Name. They, however,
refused to obey, and continued their work. Meanwhile the brethren,
living in harmony, had solved the problem of poverty by the sale and
distribution of property. Ananias and Sapphira, who tried to retain
more than they admitted, were miraculously killed by Peter, and the
community continued a career of miraculous healing, chiefly by Peter,
whose very shadow was efficacious. Once more the priests intervened,
and once more also the conclusive evidence in favour of the apostles led
to their dismissal.
Almost all of this long narrative, except the miracle of healing at
the Beautiful gate of the Temple, is regarded by Loisy as unhistorical,
and due to the interpolator. To me it seems to contain nothing which
contradicts any passage which can be held to reveal the point of view of
the author, though in some places it seems not improbable that he has
changed the meaning of his source. It gives an account of the Christians
in Jerusalem which, judged by the standard of the time when it was
written, is intelligible and probable. I partly agree with Loisy that
some of it may be unhistorical, but I cannot see that it would have
seemed so to anyone in the first century. It might just as well be the
work of Luke as of a later editor.
The details of infelicity or inconsistency to which Loisy calls attention
seem to fall into three classes: (i.) intrinsically improbable statements ;
(ii.) inconsistencies, mostly of a minor order, with previous statements ;
(iii.) infelicities in language. I cannot see that any of these really
justify Loisy.
Historical improbability is no evidence for or against either theory.
Whatever we may ourselves think about the matter, there is nothing
i THE GALILEAN TRADITION 7
in these chapters which would have appeared improbable to an early
Christian. The most serious point is not the miraculous Ascension,
or the Pentecostal glossolalia, but the importance attached to the
Twelve and to Peter. If it be really true, as Loisy thinks, that this
is a late fiction, it would strengthen his case considerably. I am,
however, inclined to think that, on the contrary, the ‘Twelve’ and
Peter’s early supremacy in Jerusalem are historically true (see Additional
Note 6).
Inconsistencies of a minor order, though worth noting, prove nothing
for or against either theory. No one ever can write quite consistently,
or tell a story quite accurately. It is important to notice these dis-
crepancies, and to decide if possible (which is but rarely) on which side
the truth lies, but they scarcely ever prove anything as to authorship or
composition, though if on other grounds a theory of composition be
accepted, it may be a valuable point in its favour that it explains
them. In the case of Acts, most of them seem to me to be accidental,
and, if they mean anything, indicate that the book was not finally
revised ; the remainder is as explicable on a theory of sources as on
Loisy’s.
Infelicities of language point in the same direction. Many of them
suggest mere lack of revision. They throw no light on the composition
of the book except to suggest the possibility of translation from Aramaic
sources, and here again the difficulty of distinguishing between a
translation from a Semitic language, Semitic Greek, and unrevised
translation-Greek seems to me insuperable. There is a fair, hardly
a strong, case for the use of Aramaic sources, but it is not proved, is
scarcely provable, and can be as easily adapted to a theory of sources as
to Loisy’s theory.
Notre II. THz CoMMAND NOT TO LEAVE JERUSALEM
AND THE ‘ GALILEAN TRADITION’
By Kirsopr Lax
The following note is essentially an Auseinandersetzung of differences
and agreement with Professors Johannes Weiss and F. C. Burkitt, both
of whom on a point of vital importance for the history of the early Church
have adopted conclusions which differ from the view generally accepted
and expressed in Vol. I. pp. 302 ff.
It has become almost a commonplace of writers on the narrative of The two
the Gospels that there are two traditions as to the appearances of ‘ditions
Jesus after the Resurrection—one placing them in Galilee, the other in surrection.
Jerusalem.
(i.) The Galilean Tradition.—According to Mark xiv. 27 f., after the The Galilean
end of the Last Supper Jesus said, ‘“ All ye shall be made to stumble, ito.
The
Jerusalem
tradition.
8 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
because it is written, I will smite the shepherd and the sheep shall be
scattered, but when I have been raised up, I will go before you (rpod£w
tpas) into Galilee.” And according to Mark xvi. 7 the ‘young man’
at the tomb, with an apparent allusion to this saying, said to the women,
** Go, tell his disciples and Peter that he goes before you (rpodyet bpas)
into Galilee: there ye shall see him, as he told you.”
The end of the gospel is missing, but the obvious suggestion of these
verses is that Mark was leading up to an appearance of the risen Jesus in
Galilee. More or less corrupted forms of such a tradition are to be found
in Matt. xxviii. 16-20, in John xxi., and in the gospel of Peter.1 They are,
relatively speaking, unimportant; the theory of a ‘Galilean tradition’
really stands or falls with the interpretation of Mark xiv. 28 and xvi. 7.
On this point Burkitt, Weiss and I are in complete agreement. Thus all
that can be claimed is that Mark indicates that the risen Jesus was first
seen in Galilee.
(ii.) The Jerusalem Tradition.—This is found in Luke xxiv. and John
xx.in cognate but largely different forms. In each gospel the writer is
obviously anxious to prove that the risen Lord was risen as a being
of flesh, and not as a spirit, in apparent contradiction to the Pauline
doctrine that there is no resurrection of the flesh but only of a
‘spiritual body’ (1 Cor. xv. 44), and possibly in opposition to early
docetic teaching.
The general tendency of most writers for many years has been to accept
the Galilean tradition, and to give two reasons for doing so. (a) Mark is
the oldest and best source. (b) Seeing that the early Church wasin Jerusalem,
not in Galilee, it is easier to suppose that the Jerusalem tradition was the
modification of the historical tradition of a previous generation by the
ecclesiastical sentiment of the next. Indeed, the most convincing argument
for the Galilean tradition has always been summed up in the question, ‘ If
it be not true, why was it ever invented ?’
Two writers, however—F. C. Burkitt and J. Weiss—in different ways
have pointedly criticized this view, and though perhaps neither has quite
done justice to the strength of the position which upholds the Galilean
tradition, they have certainly shaken the confidence which I formerly felt.
Their views are to be found in J. Weiss’s Urchristentum, 1914, pp. 10 ff.,
and in F. C. Burkitt’s Christian Beginnings, 1924, pp. 76 ff.
1 For the purposes of this note it is unnecessary to discuss fully the details
of the problem presented by the relation of these passages to the Marcan
tradition ; but it is perhaps not out of place to say that Matt. xxviii. 16-20 does
not seem to me to be based on anything more than the incomplete or mutilated
Mark which we possess. Maithew probably did not have more than we do,
and Matt. xxviii. 16 ff. is comparable to Mark xvi. 9-20—the ‘ longer conclusion ’
—or to the variant found in LY k—the ‘shorter conclusion ’—rather than to the
‘lost conclusion.’ John xxi. may be a representative of the Galilean tradition,
and the Gospel of Peter may quite conceivably—though not certainly—be based
on the lost conclusion (see further my Historical Evidence for the Resurrection
of Jesus Christ, pp. 161 ff.).
I THE GALILEAN TRADITION 9
(i.) Johannes Weiss.—Johannes Weiss objects to the view that the
disciples scattered and fled to Galilee immediately after the arrest of
Jesus on the ground of a consideration of probabilities and the exact
interpretation of special points.
The general background of the ordinary presentation of the Galilean
theory is that the crucifixion was so great a shock to the disciples, who had
expected the immediate coming of the Kingdom of God, that they moment-
arily lost all faith and fled. Why should they have done so? asks Weiss.
Jesus had foretold his death, and had warned his disciples that they would
be persecuted. Why should they lose all faith, even momentarily, because
their Master’s words were fulfilled ? That they fled from the Garden at
Gethsemane was natural, but not that they should go back at once to
Galilee. Even if some of the details in the prophecy of persecution and
death may be fairly taken as post eventum amplifications, the general fact
—so Weiss argues—that these prophecies were made cannot be doubted.
Moreover, that the disciples actually did not leave Jerusalem is shown
by Mark itself, for xvi. 7—“‘ Go, tell his disciples and Peter that he goes
before them into Galilee ”—implies that the disciples were somewhere close
at hand, where the message could be delivered—not in Galilee, and not in
hopeless flight.
Turning to the interpretation of Mark xiv. 28 Weiss argues that it does
not mean that the disciples will leave Jerusalem, or take to final flight, but
merely that they will leave Jesus at Gethsemane. This, he says, is the
meaning which Matthew—the earliest commentary on Mark—attached to
the phrase, as is shown by the addition ‘ This night’ 1 to the Marcan ‘ you
shall all be offended.’ Moreover he thinks that rpodye.v ought to mean
‘lead,’ not ‘ precede,’ and on this assumption builds up a new theory of the
history of tradition on this point.
Jesus, he thinks, did actually foretell his rejection by the Jews at
Jerusalem, and even his death at their hands. But he believed that his
suffering would be the immediate preliminary to the coming of the King-
dom, after which he would lead back his followers in triumph to their own
home—to Galilee. But the Kingdom did not come, so that the saying of
Jesus remained an unfulfilled prediction. In the Lucan tradition it was
ignored or changed to mean something else ; in Mark the ‘ Galilean episode ’
was invented to account for it.
The obvious objection to this theory is that it is so destructive of the
whole critical edifice which Weiss himself did so much to build up on the
basis of a belief in the trustworthiness of Mark. Few books ever did more
than his Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (1892) to establish confidence in
the accuracy of the Marcan presentation of the eschatological teaching of
Jesus. Before his time the popular view was that the eschatological sections
of the gospels could be discounted as the erroneous interpretation—if not
interpolation—of Jewish disciples. The Predigt Jesu seemed to end this
view. But if on so important a question as the appearance of Jesus to the
disciples in Galilee the Marcan tradition is to be put aside, and “so gilt
1 ‘This night’ is not in the oldest authorities for Mark, though it is added
in the later mss. by harmonization with Matthew.
J. Weiss.
Mark xiv.
28.
Mark’s
credibility.
Jesus’
prophecy
ot his
resurrec-
tion.
10 - THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
uns also die ‘ galilaische Uberlieferung’ als ein Phantasieprodukt,” what
becomes of all our confidence in Mark ?
Nevertheless Johannes Weiss’s criticism inevitably suggests a question
which is probably insoluble but cannot be overlooked in any serious
discussion either of the teaching of Jesus or of the beliefs of the
early Church. Did Jesus foretell his resurrection or did he speak only
of the coming of the Son of Man? And if so, did he identify himself
with that Son of Man ?
There can be no doubt that the gospel of Mark does in general repre-
sent Jesus as foretelling his death and resurrection, but few would deny
the probability that the actual wording of this repeated prophecy (Mark
viii. 31, ix. 31, x. 33 f.) is due to the influence of a knowledge of the facts
as they actually happened. On the other hand, in the teaching of Jesus
as represented by Q,' so far as we can trust critical judgement as to the
contents of Q, there is probably nothing about the death and resurrection
of Jesus. There is, however, a great deal about the coming of the Son
of Man.
What is the meaning of this curious contrast ? I am inclined to think
that Mark—as it says itself—represents the gospel about Jesus, which is
surely the correct translation of evayyéAtov "Incod Xpurrod, and that
Q, if we could reconstruct it, would prove to be based on reminiscences
of the teaching of Jesus in Galilee, and probably does not go back to
the circle of the Twelve. Both Matthew and Luke? are to some extent
1 T use Q as a generally recognized symbol for the source or sources under-
lying matter common to Matthew and Luke but not derived from Mark.
Three cautions seem to me eminently necessary when this source is being
discussed. (i.) There is no justification for assuming that Q is or is not a single
source. (ii.) There is even less justification for thinking that it did not contain
matter found in only one gospel, or that it contained everything found in
Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark. (iii.) Least of all is there any justification
for the belief that we can reconstruct it with any degree of verbal accuracy.
The phrases about which we desire to know most, and need the greatest accuracy,
are precisely those which were most likely to be emended either by Matthew
or by Luke or by both. The inaccuracy attaching to any reconstruction of Q
can be seen by considering how inaccurate would be our treatment of the
relations between Matthew and Luke if Mark had not been preserved.
Still, giving full weight to these three cautions, it seems to me that three
positive propositions may be tentatively put forward. (i.) Q was a Greek
document, or, if Q was several documents, at least one was in Greek. The close
similarity between the language of Matthew and Luke cannot otherwise be
explained, unless we assume that Luke used Matthew, and though this theory
is sometimes held, it seems to me rather improbable. (ii.) It contained, in com- |
parison with Mark, a great deal about the teaching of Jesus, and very little
narrative about his acts. (iii.) It did not contain any account of what happened
to Jesus outside of Galilee. It did not relate his death or resurrection in
Jerusalem, and it said nothing about his journey to Phoenicia. This conclusion
would be profoundly modified if the Lucan account of the Passion could be
attributed to Q, but this seems to me quite improbable.
* I cannot see any reason for thinking that Mark was influenced by Q.
ra THE GALILEAN TRADITION 11
conflations of these traditions, but Q in its absorbed form remains as a
witness that the teaching of Jesus was ethical and eschatological rather
than personal or Messianic. He announced the coming of the End and
the beginning of the World to come, rather than prophesied his death
and resurrection.
It is of course true that this teaching of Jesus did not ultimately
survive except in connexion with the teaching about Jesus, but in the first
century there must have been, at least in Galilee, a few who remembered it.
Possibly the fact that they did so is the reason why there was never any
Christian church in Galilee in the first century, for it must be remembered
that whatever may be the case to-day, the Christianity which conquered
the world was the teaching about Jesus, and that according to Acts the
apostles in their missionary speeches had very little to say as to the teaching
of Jesus. Nevertheless Q and the singular episode of Apollos, who seems
to have known the teaching of Jesus as to the ‘ Way of the Lord,’ but not
to have understood that Jesus was the Messiah (see note on Acts xviii.
24-28), warn us that in the day of the apostles there may have been a few
who adhered to the teaching of Jesus and prepared themselves for the
coming of the New Age in ignorance of, or to the exclusion of, the message
of the apostles as to the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Moreover, it is clear, even from Mark, that Jesus made no general and
public prophecy of his death and resurrection; but he did speak of the
Coming of the Son of Man—who did not come. The apostles, on the other
hand, naturally tended to emphasize the resurrection which—as they
claimed—actually had taken place, and the prophecy of the Parousia
became confused with the prophecy of the Resurrection, just as generally
the Christian message that ‘the Lord is risen’ overshadowed, though it
never wholly eclipsed, Jesus’ announcement that ‘the Kingdom of God is
at hand.’
Similarly, it is extremely unlikely that the Galileans ever thought that
Jesus himself was the ‘Son of Man,’ ! but undoubtedly the contention that
he was so formed a central part of Apostolic preaching.
The preceding paragraphs are intended to suggest problems, not to
solve them, but they serve to show that there is some difficulty in taking
the Marcan prophecies of the resurrection as a firm basis for the recon-
struction of history.
Finally, the question may be asked whether Johannes Weiss was quite Mark xiv.
justified in so certainly regarding Mark xiv. 28 as the origin of xvi. 7. - eal
Could it not have been the other way ? It is unquestionably true that vs. 28
does not fit very well into the context in which it is found, and many of
the more radical critics of the gospels have regarded it as an editorial
addition based entirely on the double belief that Jesus had been raised
from the dead and had told his disciples that he would be. Professor
Burkitt writes to me as follows :
“T am not really satisfied about Mark xiv. 28. It is absent from the
1 T doubt whether he did so himself (see Vol. I. pp. 377 ff.), but this problem
is very obscure, and there are several possible views, though to discuss them is
not germane to the present topic.
¥. C. Bur-
kitt.
12 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
very ancient Fayyum Fragment in the Rainer Papyri.1 This may mean
one of two things: (a) the saying not genuine, but inserted later in view
of Mark xvi. 7, or belief in the Galilean tradition generally ; or (b) the
saying genuine, but the writer of the document saw its difficulty and
dropped it.
**T sometimes think that (b) is the truth. There are things in Mark’s
Passion-story that are really reminiscent, and only reminiscent. The Cry
from the Cross—it has been assimilated to Ps. xxii. 1—must ultimately be
reminiscent. The young man who left his blanket in the hands of the
police is another reminiscence, nothing more. Gethsemane itself is only
‘ edifying ’ to those who already believe: it was not put down in black
and white to produce adherents to Christianity. It also is reminiscence.
Did Jesus say ‘ Afterwards, I will go back first to Galilee, away from this
Jerusalem’? Remember this is just before Gethsemane: He is not quite
certain that He can stand the ordeal.”
(ii.) Professor F. C. Burkitt.—Professor Burkitt’s position is more
subtle, and more acceptable. It is not open to the same criticism as the
theory of Johannes Weiss. His chief argument—and its strength has
certainly been overlooked by those of us who support the Galilean tradition
—is that if the Risen Lord had been seen in Galilee the Church would have
had its centre in Galilee, not in Jerusalem. It must be conceded that this
might certainly have been expected ; but is it not at least a partial answer
1 See Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, vol. i. pp. 53 ff. The text of the fragment,
which is generally ascribed to the third century, according to G. Bickell’s
transcription, is as follows:
.+ PATEINOQSE=HTONTIA
»» THNYKTIZSKANAAAIS
- +» TOFPA®ENTIATAENTON
.. +» TTPOBATAAIAZKOPTTIZOH>
-» YITETKAIEITTANTESO
»- OAAEKTPYQ.NAIZ KOK
»» + TTAPN
This he expands as follows:
. « » [mera 5 7d] payeiv, ws ediyov' md[vres ev rabry] TH vuKrl cxavdadio-
[Ojcecbe kata] 7d ypapér mardéw rdv [roméva Kal 7a] mpdBara dtacKkopmic-
[@jcovrac’ elmbvros ro]6 Ilér(pov)* cal ef mdvres, o[vx éyw* mpocGels*] 6
adextpuav dls xox[Kvéer Kal od mp&rov rpls d]rapr[joy ye).
His reconstruction of the missing words is in the main doubtless correct in
general, but some doubt has been expressed about ¢gayeiv and éényov (seo
especially Wessely in the Patrologia Orientalis, iv. pp. 174 ff.). It is dangerous to
judge from photographs, but to my own eyes it seems possible that ¢ijyov
might be read é£9\ Gov, and the reconstruction—@ycovrat evrovros ro—seems too
long. Moreover, in the photograph I cannot read ¢ayeiv but seem to see
-ayev. It would be easy to suggest ¢é7yayev. It seems to me doubtful whether
the letter before zrer- is a v, and if it were possible to read épn 6 rérpos I should
prefer it ; in any case I cannot feel happy about wer meaning Peter. Would it
be easy to find examples in Greek mss. of wer being used for rérpov ?
I THE GALILEAN TRADITION 13
that the eschatological expectation (which the appearance of the Risen
Lord surely confirmed) may have led the disciples back to Jerusalem ?
He also argues that, after all, we do not know that Mark really con-
tained the ‘Galilean tradition.’ ‘‘ But what,” he says on pp. 86 f. of
Christian Beginnings, “if Peter saw the Lord on the way, before he had
got far from the Holy City ? Would it not make him retrace his steps ?
Would he not take it first of all, in whatever form the vision may have
been, as a sign that he ought not to leave Jerusalem ? Where the Lord
was seen, there He was, or somewhere near. This, and not the old haunts,
was the holy ground, Jerusalem, not Galilee. If the experience of Peter—
and it was Peter’s experience, no doubt, that was decisive—took place at
Jerusalem, then we understand why Peter is found at Jerusalem as soon
as we hear of him again. Otherwise it remains a riddle of which no reason-
able explanation has ever been given.
‘For these reasons I think the Lucan view, that Peter and the little
nucleus of believers never got more than a day’s journey from Jerusalem
between the Crucifixion of Jesus and the Feast of Pentecost, is psycho-
logically more probable than that which seems to be indicated in Mark
and is actually set forth in Matthew, viz. that Peter and his companions
did return to Galilee and there became convinced that their Lord had risen
from the dead.
“*T have said ‘seems to be indicated in Mark,’ for after all it is not quite
certain what Mark went on to narrate. It must continually be remembered
that we have not only to deal with and explain the extant words of the
Gospel, but also the fact of Peter’s return to Jerusalem. I do not wish to
suggest that Peter did not intend to set out for Galilee ; very likely he did
start on his way. What I suggest is that he did not get very far. If he
saw his Lord alive again while he was still in the neighbourhood of the city
it would not only make him stay, abandoning his projected journey, but
he would regard it as a kindly and gracious change of purpose. He who
changed His settled and expressed practice for the sake of the Syro-
phenician woman might do so for Peter.
“TI cannot help sometimes wondering whether the well-known story
of Domine quo vadis? where St. Peter flying from Rome meets Christ on
the Appian Way and consequently turns back, may not have some historical
foundation in what occurred on the first Easter Day near Jerusalem.”
This is fascinatingly stated, and makes me waver in my opinion, though
I do not see any loophole of escape from the argument that Mark’s words
imply the expectation of appearances in Galilee, not an appearance near
Jerusalem before Galilee was reached. If we can put this aside it is
certainly much easier to accept the view that though the disciples believed
that they were to go to Galilee, they actually saw Jesus before they went—
or at least before they arrived—and that he seemed to them to reverse his
instructions and to tell them to remain in Jerusalem. Still, can we put it
aside ?
Peter's
experience
One point, moreover, seems to me to be exaggerated by Professor Burkitt. The
On pp. 85 f. of Christian Beginnings he says: “‘ If we are to invent visions
in Galilee to explain to ourselves the course of events we cannot rest with
return to
Jerusalem.
14 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
mere visions, not even with visions accompanied by assurances, whether
in the form of spoken words or intuitions, that the Lord Jesus was alive,
and was or would be exalted soon to be with His Father in Heaven. We
have to go on to invent a definite message to return to Jerusalem, some-
thing contrary to intuition, contrary to what was natural if Jesus had been
seen in Galilee. It is not a question of believing an old tradition, but of
inventing a new one, for the message to return is not included in the
tradition. The documents that tell us of appearances in Galilee say nothing
about returning to Jerusalem.”
This seems scarcely fair. He has himself to ‘invent’ an episode to
explain why the disciples did not go to Galilee, and the word ‘ invent’ is
really the wrong one; both he and the defenders of the ‘ Galilean hypo-
thesis’ are reconstructing a lost document. As a matter of fact, to recon-
struct it as he does, by assuming that the disciples did not go to Galilee,
but were intercepted by Jesus, is a more vigorous effort of imagination
than to suggest that they did go to Galilee, as all the indications in Mark
suggest, and then returned to Jerusalem, as the course of history proves
that in this case they must have done.
Professor Burkitt therefore cannot claim that his theory is any less
imaginative than the Galilean hypothesis, though he can claim that his view
makes a less desperate cleavage between the Marcan and the Lucan
traditions. If, in fact, the disciples did not actually go to Galilee, Luke has
suppressed a less important episode than on the Galilean hypothesis is
usually thought to be the case; but that is all.
Consequently I still hold to the remark made in Vol. I. p. 303, note:
“‘ This [the fact of the omission of the ‘ Galilean episode ’] is the measure
of the caution with which statements in the early part of Acts must be
received, and the justification of a free criticism.” Referring to this
Professor Burkitt says (Christian Beginnings, p. 92): ‘‘ Yes, indeed; if in
recounting to Theophilus the things most certainly believed among
Christians Luke has suppressed the sojourn of Peter and his companions in
the north during which they became convinced that Christ was risen, and
has substituted for it a tale of their remaining during this period at Jeru-
salem, then Acts ceases to deserve to be regarded as an historical document.”
This seems to me greatly exaggerated. Even if the Galilean theory be
accepted, why should Acts be not regarded as an historical document ?
The truth merely is that, in that case, Luke in choosing between two already
divergent streams of tradition chose one which we think was wrong. He
was not infallible, and he often omitted incidents which we should regard
as important. No one can doubt this who studies Acts and the Pauline
Epistles side by side. Even on Professor Burkitt’s own hypothesis Luke
omitted the command to go to Galilee, substituted a quite different message
to the disciples from the angel at the tomb, and said nothing about the
change of plan ordered by the Lord and resulting in a return to Jerusalem.
Thus, though Professor Burkitt’s suggestion seems at least sufficiently
attractive to make me waver in my allegiance to the Galilean hypothesis,
I am not wholly convinced that he is right. If he be, I should be inclined
to suggest a modification of his theory to the effect that the Galilean
Ir THE GALILEAN TRADITION 15
tradition may represent a belief widely current in Jerusalem. When the
disciples disappeared it. may have been generally assumed that they had
gone back to Galilee, whereas they had really gone only a short distance.
There is considerable reason to think that Mark is a Jerusalem document.
The objection to this, just as to Professor Burkitt’s theory as a whole, is
the difficulty of explaining the Marcan tradition, which seems to leave no
convenient room for this stay near Jerusalem and not in Galilee. Mark
xiv. 28 and xvi. 7 are too explicit.
Supposing, however, that either this or Burkitt’s theory be adopted,
where did the disciples stop ? If the hints given in Acts may be followed,
probably they stopped just over the hill of Olivet, where Bethany was.
The evidence is scanty, but it may be interesting to collect it.
(i.) The headquarters of Jesus and his disciples, during the week that
they were in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, was probably either Bethany
or Bethphage. The suggestion of Mark xi. 1, 11, 12, 19, 27, xiv. 3, 16, 26,
is quite clear that at no time did they sleep within the walls of the city.
The general position is summarized correctly—with the possible exception
of one detail—in Luke xxi. 37, “‘ And during the days he was teaching in
the Temple, but he went out and camped for the night on the mountain
called Olive-orchard.” The position of Bethphage and Bethany is doubtful
(see Additional Note 35), but it probably was on the other side of Olivet.
The most natural interpretation of the story in Mark, to anyone who has
seen the exact spot, is that Jesus and his disciples reached the end of the
long drag up from Jericho and were confronted by the final hills of Olivet
and Scopus (really a single hill-complex) which rise sharply just before
Jerusalem is reached and tower above it. The modern road goes round this
mountain, but the ancient one went over it. At the bottom of this last and
most fatiguing stage of the journey Jesus’ strength gave out, and he sent
his disciples into the village higher up on the hill to find an animal for him
to ride on.
But if a village on the other side of Olivet was the headquarters of Jesus
and the disciples, it would be thither that they probably went at the time
of the arrest of Jesus. The situation is certainly made more intelligible if
we suppose that Jerusalem was the home of Mark (as we know that it was)
and of at least some of the women. They would not see the disciples, and
might suppose that they had gone to Galilee. This would be in line with
Professor Burkitt’s view, and also with his belief that the gospel contains
personal reminiscences of Mark himself.
(ii.) The same place may have continued to be the headquarters of the
disciples in the period of forty days described in Acts i. 3. The strange
word cvvad.(dpuevos or cvvavdr(opevos may well mean ‘camping in the
open.’ (See note on the word in i. 4.)
Thus, longo circuitu, we reach the phrase in Acts i. 4, ““he commanded
them to abandon departing from Jerusalem.’’ The note on the phrase ju)
xwpiter Gar shows that the true meaning of x) with the present infinitive
is ‘give up’ a course of action. jp) kAérrewv, for instance, does not mean
‘not to steal’ (which would be p17) xAéPar) but ‘ give up being a thief.’
It is obvious that this meaning fits admirably with Professor Burkitt’s
Bethany.
The soul
after death.
16 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
view, or with the theory, expressed above, that the disciples originally lived
in Bethany (or Bethphage). This, of course, may be true even if the Galilean
theory be retained. The meaning of Acts i. 4 would then be that the
disciples returned from Galilee to Bethany and lived there, as they and
Jesus had done, but after forty days moved into Jerusalem, possibly to
the house of the family of John Mark.
(iii.) A curious piece of evidence suggests that Bethany may have
been frequented by the disciples even longer than the forty days. In
Acts iii. 1 Peter and John are described as coming to the ‘ Beautiful
Gate’ of the Temple. It is unknown where this gate was, but tradition
(though relatively worthless, see further in Additional Note 35) takes it to
be one of the Eastern gates of the Temple, opposite Olivet. Why should
anyone living in Jerusalem come in by this gate? The only possible
answer is that he would not. The Mishna says that the Southern gate was
the usual gate, and common sense suggests the same view. The Eastern
gate is the natural approach to the Temple only for those who are coming
from Scopus or Olivet; and if it be true that the ‘ Beautiful Gate’ is the
Eastern gate, it suggests that the disciples were living in Bethany or
Bethphage rather than in Jerusalem.
Note III. Tor AscEnsIon
By Krrsopp Lake
The belief in the Ascension is partly, at least, an attempt to define
more clearly the relation between the living Jesus who died on the Cross
and the risen Lord who appeared to the Apostles. The oldest tradition
was that the Lord did not rise until the third day. This belief is
probably a combination of two ‘experiences’: (i.) of the Apostles who
saw the risen Jesus; (ii.) of the women who on the third day could not
find his body. At first there was doubtless no attempt to discuss where
the ‘life’ of Jesus was during the three days. Paul shows no conscious-
ness of the question, and some of his incidental remarks might suggest
that he thought of Jesus as passing straight from death on the Cross
to life as a heavenly being. 1 Corinthians xv. 1 ff. is, however, clear
evidence that he thought of the Lord, who is the Spirit, as a transmuta-
tion into spirit of the body which had been buried.
Sooner or later, however, the question was bound to arise, where had
been the ‘life’ of Jesus during the interval of the three days? The
answer to this question depended on the view taken as to the relation
between soul and body. After death the body is buried, but where is
the soul? The Jewish belief, older than any theory of a resurrection,
said that the soul is in Sheol, and the story of Lazarus and Dives shows
that in some circles it was thought that a preliminary judgement on men
sent them immediately after death either to ‘ Abraham’s bosom’ or to
a place of punishment. A similar view is implied by the words of Jesus
ut THE ASCENSION 17
to the penitent thief on the Cross, “To-day shalt thou be with me in
Paradise,” and by his last words, “ Father, into thy hands I commend my
spirit.” Possibly too dvéAnyus was used of the departure of the soul to
Paradise, and this may explain the curious use of the word in Luke ix,
51. It is quite possible that this was Luke’s own view, and that he
regarded the resurrection as the reuniting of soul and body. But in the
main he is using older documents and does not elucidate this point.
A further problem, however, arose. The cessation of appearances of The tradi-
the risen body of Jesus had to be explained, and the story of a bodily tonof
ascension was an almost inevitable consequence. This was rendered the tions.’
easier by the existence of a series of traditions as to the ‘assumption’ or
‘translation’ of living persons such as Elijah or Enoch, to which the Apoca-
lyptists added Moses, Baruch, and Ezra, The common element in their
stories is the taking up to heaven of a living person, and supplied a natural
explanation for the passing of the risen Jesus from earth to heaven.
Thus three positions emerge in the earliest Christian literature :
(a) According to the Pauline Epistles the resurrection of Christians will The Pauline
be a change from a cdpa yuxixdv to a oGpa mvevparixdy, for flesh EP!Stes
and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. xv. 44 and 50).
Inasmuch as Paul bases this anticipation of the resurrection or meta-
morphosis of Christians on the model of the resurrection of Jesus, who was
the first-fruits (1 Cor. xv. 23), he must have held that the risen Lord had
a ‘spiritual’ body, or, in other words, was a spirit (Rom. viii. 9 ff. and
2 Cor. iii. 17), for ‘spirits’ were held to have ‘bodies,’* though not of
flesh and blood, The home, if the word may be used, of the risen Lord
was heaven, and his appearances were those of a heavenly being.®
(6) According to Luke and John the risen Lord had the same body ee and
as was buried, and it still consisted of flesh and blood (Luke xxiv. 39 ;
John xx. 27 ff.). This view ultimately prevailed in the Church, and
the Pauline view was forgotten.
(c) A third view is found in the Gospel of Peter, which seems Gospel of
sharply to separate the Ascension of the Divine Christ from that of *°*™
the human Jesus. According to it the former ‘ascended,’ or was ‘taken
up’ (dveAjppOn—the word used in Acts) at the moment of his death,
but the latter was raised in a state of glory on the third day.
1 It is very remarkable that Luke makes Jesus give this answer to the
eschatological petition of the malefactor. The Manichaeans used this passage
to prove that there is no resurrection of the body, but that the soul alone
lives in Paradise. Some interesting remarks on this subject may be found in
G. Bertram’s ‘Die Himmelfahrt Jesu vom Kreuz aus und der Glaube an seine
Auferstehung,’ in the Festgabe fiir Adolf Deissmann, 1927.
2 Origen, De principiis i. 1 ff., shows that even in the third century the
statement that God is rvefua was taken to mean that God has a cua, i.e. is
‘material,’ and Origen has to argue hard and subtly that it means that God
is vods, i.e. is ‘immaterial.’ Origen’s success is shown by the extent to which
in later Christian terminology ‘spirit’ and ‘spiritual’ are used as the equivalent
of the Platonic voids and vonrés. But in the beginning it was not so.
3 See also K. Lake, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, pp. 220 ff.
VOL. V Cc
18 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
This is in some ways the clearest example we possess of the view
discussed above that the soul of Jesus passed to Paradise at his death,
and was afterwards reunited to his body. It is doubtless very early, but
it is mixed with a much later and fantastic picture of the resurrection
of the body. A similar view was held by Cerinthus,! but he identified
that which was taken up with the Divine Christ as distinct from the
human, or apparently human body of Jesus,
On the Pauline view, then, the Resurrection was the passage from
earth to heaven, or was identical with the Ascension ; but on the Lucan
and Johannine view which the Church adopted it was a temporary
restoration of intercourse with the disciples on earth followed by the
Ascension. This raises the questions: (i.) What was the purpose of this
renewed intercourse, and why did it cease? (ii.) How long did it last ?
(iii.) What was the place of the Ascension ?
The purpose (i.) The first question can be answered shortly. The purpose of the
Seek: intercourse was threefold. First, it was evidence of the Resurrection
(Acts i. 2), Secondly, it was for the purpose of further instruction
(Acts i, 3). Thirdly, both Acts and John indicate that Jesus left the
disciples in order that they might receive the Holy Spirit (Acts ii. 33 ;
John xvi. 7, and xx. 22 f)).
Iteduration: (ii.) The length of the intercourse is variously defined in different
documents, and the variation indicates how relatively little influence Acts
had in the formation of tradition in the earliest period, and how much
it had later.
Acts. (a) According to Acts the renewed intercourse lasted forty? days.
There is, however, no other reference in the New Testament to the
period of forty days, and Paul seems to exclude it by regarding the
Ascension as synonymous with the Resurrection. Yet in the end it was
1 Cf. Iren. Adv. haer. i. 21, ed. Harvey, or i, 26, ed. Massuet, and
Hippolytus, Refut. vii. 33; and for a discussion of Cerinthus see especially the
excursus in O. Schmidt’s ‘ Gespriiche Jesu’ etc. in the Teate und Untersuchungen,
xliii., commonly quoted as the Zpistola Apostolorum. The Christology of
Cerinthus seems to have been essentially a form of Adoptionism, securing the
apotheosis of the human body, and is closely akin to the doctrine found in Hermas,
2 The number ‘forty’ seems to be traditional in sacred history: Moses was
forty days on Mt. Sinai (Exod. xxxiv. 28), Elijah travelled forty days and forty
nights in the strength of the food given him by the angel (1 Kings xix. 8), and
Ezra spent forty days in transcribing the Law before his exaltation to heaven
(4 Ezra xiv. 23, 49), and Baruch waited forty days for his assumption (Apoc.
Baruch \xxvi. 4). The last two passages are in books that are scarcely in-
dependent of each other, but they are independent of Acts. Their agreement with
it in the detail of forty days before an ascension is a striking coincidence, if
nothing more. Many curious facts are collected by W. H. Roscher in ‘ Tessera-
kontaden’ in the Berichte d. stich. Ges. d. Wiss. (Leipzig) xi. (1909) pp. 15 ff.
on the number forty in legend and custom, but they bear only remotely on this
passage.
ul THE ASCENSION 19
universally accepted by the tradition of the Church, and is the reason
for celebrating the feast of the Ascension on a Thursday.
(6) The Johannine tradition is not perfectly clear, but there are some John.
indications that the writer thought that Jesus ascended after his
appearance to Mary Magdalen. When Mary saw the risen Lord she
went forward towards him (the narrative implies this even if the text
does not state it), and Jesus said, ‘Touch me not, for I am not yet
ascended to the Father” (John xx. 17). The form of ‘touch me not’
(pa Garou, not pa) diy) shows that it almost means ‘do not detain me.’
Similarly in John xvi. 7 Jesus had said, “If I go not away the Paraclete
will not come, but if I go I will send him to you,” and in fulfilment of
this on his reappearance to the disciples (John xx. 22 f.) he gave them
the Spirit. It would thus appear that John’s view was that Mary
Magdalen saw Jesus just before the Ascension, of which he gives no
description, and that the gift of the Holy Spirit followed after it.
He seems to regard the risen Lord as remaining a being of flesh and
blood even after the Ascension. This soon became the traditional belief,
but was combined with the Lucan view that the Ascension took place
forty days after the Resurrection. It is remarkable that John differs
from Luke in that he does not conceive of the risen Lord as renewing
his general intercourse with his disciples. The appearances after the
Resurrection or Ascension are short and transitory, which is quite
different from the picture given in Acts, It should be noted that the
desire to harmonize John and Acts is the source of Chrysostom’s
explanation that 5: 7epov in i. 3 means appearances ‘at intervals,’
It is very doubtful whether 8: 7yep@v can mean this, and it is surely
not the real meaning of Acts (see note ad-loc.).
(c) In the Gospel of Peter the Ascension of the Christ takes place at Gospel of
the death of the body on the Cross, and the resurrection of that body ee
on the third day seems probably (though not necessarily) to imply that
it also then ascended to heaven. (See H. B. Swete, Gospel of Peter, and
K. Lake, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, pp. 155 ff. ')
(d) The Epistle of Barnabas xv. says, 61d Kai dyopev THY 24€pav Barnabas.
THY oydénv (i. e. in distinction to the Jewish Sabbath) eis edppoovvyy,
év 7 Kat 6 *Inoots averTn ék vekpOv kat pavepwleis aveBn eis
ovpavovs. This probably means that the writer placed the Ascension on
the same day as the Resurrection, but may mean merely that he placed it
ona Sunday. Neither view can be reconciled with the tradition of forty
days. In this connexion, too, may be noted the view of Chrysostom
(Hom. iii. 1) that the Ascension was on a Saturday; but this is merely
his inference from the reference in Acts i. 12 to a ‘sabbath day’s journey.’
It does not imply that he was ignorant of or rejected the forty days, but
that he began to count them from the day after the Resurrection (Monday)
and put the Ascension on the day after their completion.
(e) A tradition similar to Barnabas is in the Epistola Apostolorwm Ep. Apost.
(A.D. 150), which seems to place the Ascension on the third day, after
Jesus had given to the disciples instruction and warning as to their
future work. There is no suggestion that those instructions extended
20 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
beyond the day of the Resurrection. The Epistola ends: “ After he had
said this, and had ended his speech with us, he said to us again, See
on the third day at the third hour there comes he who sent me, that
I may depart with him. And as he spake there came thunder and
lightning and earthquake, and Heaven opened, and there appeared a
cloud of light, which took him up. And there sounded the voices of
many angels, who rejoiced and sang praises, and said, Gather us, O Priest,
to the Light of glory. And as he approached the sky we heard his voice,
Go in peace.” (See C. Schmidt, Epistola Apostolorum, pp. 154 and 300 ff.)
Valentinians. (f) The Valentinians, according to Irenaeus (Adv. haer. i. 3. 2, ed.
Mass. ), considered that the risen Jesus remained eighteen months with the
disciples: tovs Aowrods SexaoxT® aidvas pavepotoOar, Sia Tod pera.
THY €x vexpov avdoraciv SexaoxTa pynot réyew Siatetpipévar adtdy odv
tois paOyrais. This theory was also held by the Ophites, of whom
Irenaeus (Adv. haer. i. 30. 14) says remoratum autem ewm post resur-
rectionem XVIII. mensibus et sensibilitate] in eum descendente didicisse quod
liquidum est ; et paucos ex discipulis suis, quos sciebat capaces tantorwm
mystertorum, docutt haec et sic receptus est in caelum, etc. For the further
explanation of this strange passage see Harvey’s note in his S. Irenaei . . .
adversus Haereses, tom. i. pp. 239 f. The same tradition is also found in
the Ethiopic Ascension of Isaiah (Asc. Is. ed. Dillmann, ix. 16): ‘ And
when he has spoiled the angel of death he will rise on the third day, and
will remain in that world five hundred and forty-five days (= eighteen
months).” Cf. too Ephrem’s Commentary in which he animadverted
against this view (see Vol. III. p. 381). Harnack thinks this period of
eighteen months may represent a correct tradition as to the date of Paul’s
conversion, and the belief that the vision on the road to Damascus was
really the last appearance of the risen Lord (see SBA., 1912, pp. 677 f.).
Piatis (g) The Pistis Sophia and the Book of Jeu say that Jesus remained
i twelve years with the disciples. The Pistis Sophia is the secret teaching
which he gave in the twelfth year.
The tenden- All of these traditions show the growing tendency to look on the
cies produ- . é ‘ : A “
iia’ these instruction given by Jesus on earth as superior in authority to all other,
traditions. and two lines of development can be noted. One of these lengthened the
period of converse between Jesus and his disciples, in order to find room
for much secret doctrine. In the end it survived in the Catholic Church
only in the very early form represented by Acts i. 3. But the principle
always remained that the words of Christ have an authority superior to
that of the voice of God in living persons or institutions ; it was the basis
of an ‘ Apostolic’ canon? of the New Testament, and became dominant
in Protestantism. The other tendency was to emphasize the abiding
1 The Church never said that the gift of prophecy had wholly ceased, but it
was hard to convince it that individuals, such as Montanus, were inspired by
the Holy Spirit ; and by putting ‘ Apostolic’ authority above that of prophets
it rendered it possible to close the canon of the New Testament. It should,
however, be remembered that this was the result, not the purpose, of the action
of the Church.
tat THE ASCENSION 21
presence of the Divine Christ in the Church and in men, as the ‘sons of
God.’ This can be seen clearly in the Pauline literature, in which,
however, it is sometimes obscured by the habit of the writer to speak
indifferently of ‘ Christ,’ the ‘Spirit of Christ,’ the ‘Spirit of God,’ and
‘the Spirit’ (cf. Rom. viii. 9 ff.). This principle was to some extent
overshadowed by the other in official circles, but survived in all forms
of mystical personal Christianity, and in the Catholic doctrine of the
Church as an inspired institution, even though this was largely neutralized
by the theory of ‘ apostolic’ authority and of immutable tradition.
The difficulty of reconciling the two points of view—which represent
the eternal conflict between institutional history and personal experience—
was largely concealed by the rapid growth of a distinction between Christ,
more and more used as the name of the heavenly Jesus, and the Spirit,
regarded as the source of existing religious life.
Acts stands here, as so often, at the parting of the ways. The
‘Lord’ is the ever-present guide of Christians, and his commands are
paramount ; but in some cases this guide of life is spoken of as the Spirit
and already distinguished from the Lord, in contrast to Paul’s ‘the Lord
is the Spirit.’ For this reason the writer makes use of the Ascension as
marking a difference of relationship, and limits the intercourse between
the risen Jesus and his followers to forty days.
(iii.) The place of the Ascension.—Neither in the Gospel nor in Acts The place
is this indicated so definitely as to be beyond question. es:
The Gospel of Luke seems to place the Ascension at Bethany, for it Luke.
says eEjnyaye Se avrovs ws pds BynOaviav ... kal... dueorn ax’ avTov
(Luke xxiv. 50), and, even if (as is probable) the actual description of
the Ascension ought to be omitted from this text, the event referred
to as the separation of Jesus from the disciples (Siérry . . .) certainly
is intended to be the final episode of his ministry, and is the same as the
Ascension of Acts i. 6-11. It is, indeed, sometimes thought that
éws mpds BnOaviav may mean ‘until on the way to Bethany,’ but this
seems very harsh, for though mpds can mean ‘towards’ as well as ‘to,’
éws mpods can hardly do so.
In Acts the place of the Ascension is not named in i. 6-11, but Acts.
in vs. 12 it is said that the disciples returned to Jerusalem, after the
Ascension, from Olivet. The obvious implication is that the Ascension
was on Olivet, i.e. ‘the olive-yard,’ oltvetwm, called ‘Mount of Olives’
in Matthew and Mark.! It is the long hill immediately to the east of
Jerusalem, now called by the Moslems Jebel et Tur (the hill of the
Mount), or by Christians Jebel ez-Zeitun (the hill of Olives). Tradi-
tion has accepted the view that the top of this hill was the site of the
Ascension, and a church on the spot commemorates it. But tradition
has also identified Bethany with El Azariyeh, ‘the village of Lazarus,’
1 The two places may have seemed to Luke to be almost the same. Following
Mark xi. 1 he mentions them together in Luke xix. 29, and while the other
_gospels say that Jesus retired at nightfall from Jerusalem to Bethany (Mark xi.
11 f., ef. xiv. 3), Luke xxi. 37 says that Jesus spent his nights on Olivet.
The Messi-
anic import-
ance of
Olivet.
Matthew.
Acts.
22 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
almost at the bottom of the south-eastern slope of Olivet on the modern
road to Jericho, and commentators have therefore endeavoured to explain
drd tod "EAatavos as ‘returned by way of Olivet,’ which is at least
very unlikely Greek (see also Addit. Note 35).
It is not impossible that the emphasis on the Mount of Olives is
due to its importance in Messianic expectation. The origin of this was
Zech. xiv. 3 ff.: “Then shall the Lord go forth and fight against those
nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall
stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem
on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof
towards the east and towards the west, and there shall be a very great
valley.... And the Lord my God shall come, and all the holy ones with
thee.” This appears to have been interpreted by the later Rabbis to
mean that the Resurrection would take place through the cleft in the
Mount of Olives, and that the righteous dead who had died outside
of Palestine would be moved along underground, and so be able to come
upin the proper place. It was also held that Messiah would frequent
the mountain. Rabbi Janna also explained in a similar manner Ezekiel
xi, 23: “And the glory of the Lord went up from the midst of the
city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city.”
He said that the Shekinah stood three and a half years on Olivet, and
preached saying, “Seek ye the Lord while he may be found ; call upon him
while he is near,” and when all was in vain returned to its own place.
Nort IV. Tue Dratu or Jupas
By Kirsoppr Laks
There are three extant traditions of the death of Judas:
(1) Matt. xxvii. 3-10. Tore ov *Tovdas 6 mapadovs avTov ore Kar-
exptOn, perapedn Gets corpepev Td, TpudKovra dpytpwa Tots dpxvepetion Kat
mperBurépors A€ywv* yyaptov tapadods aiua dOpov. ot S€ efrav* Ti
mpods npas; ob dvy. Kal pi~as Ta dpytpia eis Tov vady avexapycer,
kat dreAOdv arnyEato. ot S& dpyxuepeis AaPdvres Ta dpytpia etrav'
ovk eLertiv Badeiv aita eis Tov KopBavav, érel Tin aipards eoriv
ocuvpBovrAvov S AaBdvres Hydpacav €€ aitav Tov aypdv TOD Kepapéws
cis Tapiy Tots févous. 51d €xAHOn 0 aypds exeivos dypds alparos ews
THs o7pepov. TOTE ern pon 7d pn bev bia ‘Tepepiov Tot mpodijrov
Aéyovros" kat éAaBov ° 70, TpidKkovra dpytpua, THY repay Tob TET YUM HEVOU
ov erysijravro amd vidv “Iopard, kat éOwkav adra eis Tov aypdv ToD
Kepapews, Kaba, cvvérager prot Kvpuos.
(2) Acts i, 18- 19. Otros pev obv exTHT ATO Xwplov éx purbod Tis
ddixias, Kab ™pnvys yevopevos éAdunoev pcos” Kat eLex¥n TavTo.
TO. omhdyxva avTov* Kat yroordy eyevero. Tao Tots KaTOLKovoLW
TepovraAnp, doe An Piva 7} Xepiov éxeivo TH SiaAexTw adTor
’"AyxeASapax, TOUT’ EoTiv Xwpiov aiparos.
IV THE DEATH OF JUDAS 23
(3) A third tradition was represented by Papias in the fourth book Papias.
of his Aoyiwy xvpiaxav éEnyjoes. This book is no longer extant, but
its evidence on this point was quoted by Apollinarius of Laodicea,? and
has been preserved in various catenae. The best form is in Cramer’s catena
(Oxford, 1844), but there are two versions, one in the catena to Matthew
and the other in the catena on Acts. Their texts? can readily be
shown to be ultimately identical by printing the two forms side by side.
CraMER: Catena in Matt. xxvii. CraMER: Catena in Acta i.
“Atrohwapiou * *loréov ore O *Atro[Awvapiou]. Ovx évarébave
*Tovdas ovk evarebave TH dyxXovy, tT ayxovy “Iovdas, GAN ereBiw
GAN ereBioxe Karevex Geis mpd TOU
dromviyjvat, Kat tovto dnAovouw
c lad > / , ¢
ai tov “ArooroAwv II pagers, ore
Tpynvyns yevopevos, eAdxnoe Kal Td.
e€ns* Ttovto dé cadéorepov toro-
pet Ilarias, 6 “Iwdvvov tod azo- 2 : ‘ :
oréAov pabntis, Néywv' Méya capertepov ioroped Ilamrias 6
> / 4 7 o
doeBeias brodeypa ev Toit TH Iwdvvov pabnrtijs, A€ywv ots,
Koop mepierdtncev 6 “lovdas: ev ty 8’ rhs eEnyjoews TOV Kupi-
\ \ 3528 a \ ~
mpno els yap ért tooovrov tIv axdv Adywv: peyad Se doeBelas
odpka, dore pr StvarGar Sve Oeiv,
dpdéns padins Stepxopevns, brd
THS Gpdéns wrawevta 7a, eyKata
eyKevwOjvat. ees . y aitae
tod abtod. IlpnaGeis éri rocod- érd0ev dpaga Sdiepxerar padiws
> a 4 na
Tov Thy odpka Gore ovde Srdbev Exeivov SivarBar SueAOeiv: aGAAG
e SaSi 8 , r Eyer \ ore , a a
dpatav padiws duepxerat, exetvov unde avrdv pdvov Tdv THs Kehadijs
, a > ‘ \ a
Stvvacbar SueAGciv, adrAAA pumbev Bykov adrod: 7a pev yap BrEpapa.
2 , 7 nw nw »”
adrdv povov Tov THs Kepadis yKov"
Ta pev yap BrEpapa adrod tov ia fos rege \ ;
4 - ‘ See rae Tov €£o.djoat, ws avTdy pev Kabo-
6fOarpov pact torovtov e£o.djoat, Nee hee neue ane
ws avrov pev KaOdXrov 75 das pur) veri Ge al B es rabig of-
BrErew, Tods 6POadports S€ adrod Gadpords dé avtod pde trd iarpod
fal lal > an a
pyde td iarpexns Sidrtpas 6fO7- Sudrrrpas 6fOfvar SivacOat: rocod-
1 Zahn has argued (7ASK., 1866, pp. 683 ff.) that the Apollinarius quoted in
the catenae is sometimes, and especially in this place, Claudius Apollinarius of
Hierapolis who lived in the second half of the second century. It is not
impossible that some of the passages attributed to Apollinarius may belong to
this writer, and a critical investigation of catenae might be rewarded by results,
but in this instance the probability is greatly in favour of Apollinarius of
Laodicea, because we know that Claudius Apollinarius accepted the Matthaean
version of the death of Judas without reserve. Cf. Eusebius, H.2#. v. 16. 18,
where Apollinarius says of Montanus and Maximilla: rovrous yap brd rvedparos
Brawidpovos éxarépous broxwihocavros Néyos dvaprijca: Eavro’s, .. . Kal olrw dé
TerevTioa Kal Tov Blov karacrpéWat Lovda mpodédrov dikyp.
2 It is extremely likely that research in Mss. of the catenae would enable
these texts to be greatly improved.
\ XN A > lal
kadaipeBeis mpd Tod dromveyhvac’
Kat tovto SnAotow ai trav ’Azo-
/ / tid ‘ ,
ordAwv ITIpdages, dre pynvis yevo-
2\ 7 cA yY J ,
pevos ehaxnoe péros, Kat eFextOn
Ta orAdéyxva avrov. Tovto Se
trddeypa év totTw TO Kdcpy
és «3 A ‘
mepreratnoev 6 “lovdas: mpnoOels
ext TorovTov THY TdpKa, GaTE pyde
tov 6p0arpov adbrod dart tocod-
The original
form of the
story in
Papias.
24
CRAMER: Catena in Matt. xxvii.
va Sivac Bax, torovTov aos
etxov amd THs éEwbev emipavetas *
To 6€ aidofov avrod dons pev
aisxtvys andértepov Kal peifov
paiver Bar, _ Peper Oat be 8 advrod
Tovs e€ daravros Tob oOparos
ouppeovras ixdpas, Kal oKdAnxas,
eis bBpw 0 away pdvov TOV dvay-
Kalwv. pera dé roAAas Bacdvous
Kal Tyzwpias év Sip pact Xwpiy
TeAevTiTavTos, dir THS oops
épnpov Te kat doukov TovTo 7}
Xwpiov Pex pt Tis vov yevér Oat, dAN’
ovde pexpt onpepov SivacOai tive
éxeivov Tov TOmov TapeADeiv, edv pn
THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
NOTE
CRAMER: Catena in Acta i.
tov Babos etxov amd Tis efwbev
erupavetas. 7d 5€ aidotov adtrov
Taos pev a xXnporivns anderTEpov
Kat pet(ov haiverOar* féperOar Se
80 avtod ék mavtds Tod cwpaTos
cuppéovtas iy@pas te Kal oKwAn-
kas eis UBpw 8 adbtdv jdvov
TOV dvayKkaiwv* peta mwodXas dé
Bacdvovs Kat Tipwpias, év diy
pact Xopiy TeAeuTaTaVTE * kat
TovTo dard THS 0d00 [? opis] € epypov
kal doiknrov Td xwpiov PEXpL Tis
vov yever Oar GAN ove pexpt Tijs
onpepov SivacGai tia éxeivov Tov
Torov TapeAOeiv, av pn Tas pivas
tais xepoiv emippaéy* tocavry
dua Tis capkds avTov Kal eri yjs
Kpiow exwpnoer.
X ta o \ > ,
Tas pivas Tals xepotv erippagy.
It will be seen, however, that these versions differ in one very
important point. In the catena on Acts the whole story is attributed to
Papias ; but in the catena on Matthew the quotation from Apollinarius
which contains the extract from Papias ends with the statement that
Judas was crushed by a wagon, and a new extract from Apollinarius 4
then begins and gives a more elaborate and gruesome account of the
swelling up and death of Judas. These two versions do not agree: in
one the wagon is the cause of death, in the other it is part of the
comparison and only mentioned to show the extent to which Judas was
swollen. The question is whether the ‘crushing by a wagon’ or the
longer version is really that of Papias.
The matter cannot be settled with certainty, but J. Rendel Harris
has tried to bring the balance of probability to the side of the
attribution of the longer version by pointing out in the American
Journal of Theology, July 1900, p. 501, that Bar Salibi in his com-
mentary on Acts quotes the passage about the oxwAnxas, and definitely
ascribes it to Papias. It is extremely improbable that Bar Salibi used
the catena of Andreas, so that this is independent evidence that the
passage was taken from Papias by Apollinarius.
If so, Papias described Judas as living after the betrayal, and dying
from a disease so terrible that his estate remained unoccupied. Among
the symptoms mentioned was extreme swelling, so that a place where a
wagon could pass was too narrow for him. This comparison gave rise to
a secondary form of the story which represented Judas as crushed by a
1 E. Nestle, Zxpos. Times, xxiii., 1912, p. 331, refers to the Acta Pilati,
Recension B (Tischendorf, Lvangelia Apocrypha, 2nd ed. p. 290), where the
text reads éAdxiwev, érploOn (i.e. érpjoby). But this is very late. For the
verb érpjon cf. Num. v. 21, 22, 27.
IV THE DEATH OF JUDAS— 25
wagon. This would justify the reconstruction of the fragment of Papias
by Hilgenfeld, ZW Th. 1875, pp. 262 f., and printed by Preuschen in his
Antilegomena, ed. ii. pp. 97 f.
On the other hand, general probability would perhaps suggest that
the shorter version is likely to be original. If so, the gruesome details
and the changed form of the longer version is due to a desire to pile
up horrors and to make the death of Judas similar to that of other
notoriously evil men, such as Herod the Great or Nadan in the story
of Ahikar. To me this seems somewhat the more probable hypothesis.
Whichever view be taken, Papias clearly represents a tradition different
both from Matthew and from Acts.
It remains to consider ancient and modern attempts at harmoniza- Harmoniza-
tion so far as they have any importance, and finally to discuss the possible “°™
origin of the three stories.
It was inevitable that ecclesiastical writers should endeavour to
reconcile the three traditions. The beginning of this can be seen already Apolli-
in Apollinarius, but he can scarcely be said to be harmonizing all the ™"*
details. He is only anxious to maintain that dmyjyéaro in Matthew
does not necessarily imply death, and quotes Acts and Papias to prove
his point. It is probable (though he does not say so) that he regarded
Tpynvis yevouevos and mpynoGeis as giving respectively the reason why
Judas did not die—a man who tries to hang himself but rpynvjs yiverat
probably survives—and why permanent evil followed from the strangling,
e£exv0n xrA. being a shorter description of the disease described by
Papias. It is extremely improbable that this is what Matthew, Luke,
or Papias meant, but considering the conviction of ancient writers that
all scriptures agree, Apollinarius must have held some such view.
More extensive attempts at explanation and harmonization are to be
found collected by J. Rendel Harris in AJTh., July 1900, pp. 490 ff.
The most interesting are (1) Theophylact. in Matt, 27: Theophy-
lactus.
Tives 5¢ A€yovow dre 6 “lovdas Pirdpyvpos dv treddpBavev dru
> /, tA \ > 7 ‘ / % ¢€ \ >
avtTés Te KEepdnoe. TA apytpia mpodods Xpirrdv, kat 6 Xpwrrds ovK
> , > ~ 4 ‘\ > 4 c , 4
droxtavOnoerat dAAA Siadpdyyn Tods “lovdaiovs, ds worAAdKis Siepvye.
tore S¢ iSav adrdv Karaxpilevra, kat 45n KatadixacOevta amoOavety,
, c lal 4 > / x7 «@ 3 / &
petapeAnOn, ds ToD mpdypatos adroBdvros wap’ Srep treAdpBave. 810
kal amny€ato iva mpoddByn tov “Inrotv év tH Gdn Kal ixerevoras
cwtnpias tevénta. tAnY yivwoke Ste EOnke pev Tov TpadxnAov adrod
eis THY ayxdovnv, rd SevSpov tivds Kpeudoas Eavtdv* Tov Se Sevdpov
KALOevtos, erée(noe, TOD Geod OédovTos adTdv 7 Eis peTavoLay ovvTHpHaaL
7} eis Tapaderypaticpov Kal aicxtvynv. pact yap dr. voow bdepixy Gore
m” Lid < "g vA > ‘ -, a > ‘
évOa dpaga padiws Siépxeras, adrdv py Stivacbar diedAOeiv, cira rpyvijs
| > / > A “A ser e Le ‘ > a ,
merov ehaxyoev, avtt Tov Sieppdyn, ws Aovkas pyotv év tais Ipd€ercv.
(2) A scholion, attributed to Eusebius, quoted by Matthaei, Novwm Eusebius.
Testamentum, vol. v. p. 304 (Riga edition, 1782) :
éXdxnoe] EiceBiov. arjdOev *lovdas cat daiprivev éavrov év TO
TXoWwiy, peta 7d piat aitoy Ta apytpia. THs € cxolvov Kat’ oikovo-
26 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
piav Oeod payeions, eis ynv erevev, ovK di éBave dé wap’ vv, aAXa.
xvdevrwv avrod TOV omhdyxvov, ereOn ev KpaBBdry, S00 pépas
mplOvagros kat darvevorusy * [forte 4 Garvevotos Ov] ex de Tob KpaBBarov
exrenmToxids, payjivas pérov kal tore droOaveiv, TeAeiws TOV oTAdyXVOV
adtod eEoxerevGevTwv.
Armenian (3) A quotation in the Armenian catena, quoted by F. C. Conybeare
Rect in the American Journal. of Philology, xvii. p. 150:
“(Of Chrysostom*?] Accordingly he (i.e. Peter) describes also the
sentence which he suffered. ‘ Being swollen up,’ he says, ‘he burst in
the middle and all his bowels were poured out.” He does well to relate,
not the offence, but the punishment, in order to the comforting of those
who were afraid of the Jews. But that he fell on the earth and burst
and his bowels gushed out, is like this. For he shut the doors against
himself before he strangled himself, and he remained there on the gibbet
the Friday and the Saturday. When he had swollen up and grown
heavy, the cord was cut by which he hung: he fell, burst asunder, and
was poured out. But the stench of the putrifying heap and of his guts
brought together the children of Jerusalem to come and _ view his
infamous end, and the awful sign which was for him the precursor of
hell-fire.”
Isho‘dad. (4) The commentary of Isho‘dad on the Acts,’ published (for this
passage) by J. Rendel Harris, AJTh., July 1900, p. 496:
“¢He fell upon his face on the earth, and he burst asunder,’ etc.
They say that when Judas hanged himself either the halter was released
and he escaped, or else someone saw him hanging and saved him ; and
this happened by the providence of God, first that the disciples might
not be accused of having hanged him, and then because it was fitting
that he who had betrayed him openly should die openly. So he lived
on and saw the resurrection of his Lord and heard that he had come to
his disciples many times, and that he had ascended to heaven; and
then he came when many were gathered together, and fell on the ground
in the midst of the city, and burst asunder, etc.”
oe More important for the study of Acts is the influence of this har-
Te monizing process on the text of the Acts. This is found in the African
Latin of Augustine contra Felicem, which reads—
hic igitur possedit agrum de mercede iniustitiae suae, et collwm sibi
alligavit et deiectus in faciem diruptus est medius, et effusa sunt omnia
viscera evus,
Here it is clear that collum sibi alligavit, whatever Greek it may represent,
is an attempt to harmonize Acts with Matthew. It is very remarkable
Jerome. that Jerome seems to have been acquainted with this reading, though
1 This is Matthaei’s accentuation. Possibly the ms. reads davevorl dv.
2 More probably Ephrem Syrus, see Vol. III. p. 391.
3 Published in full by Mrs, Gibson in Horae Semiticae, x. 4, 1918.
a THE DEATH OF JUDAS 27
in the shorter form of suspensus instead of collum sibi alligavit, but he
apparently took it as a substitute—he can scarcely have thought that
it was a translation—for rpnvys yevopevos. He therefore reads in the
Vulgate suspensus crepuit medius et diffusa sunt omnia viscera evus, Con-
sidering the relative dates of the authorities, this is a clear case of the
well-known double process in textual history: first, a gloss is added to
explain a difficult text; secondly, the gloss takes the place of the
difficulty, which is left out altogether.
An instance of exactly the same process, but dealing with the Papias The ar-
story of ‘swelling’ instead of with the Matthaean story of ‘hanging,’ ™°™a” text
is found in the history of the Armenian text. The Armenian Vulgate
reads “ Being swollen up he burst in the middle and all his bowels were
poured out,” representing apparently rpyo Geis instead of rpnvijs yevopuevos.
This is clearly a harmonization of Acts with Papias, just as Jerome’s Vulgate
is a harmonization of Acts with Matthew. But just as Augustine shows
an earlier text behind Jerome, which explained but did not omit mpnvijs
yevopuevos, so the Armenian catena suggests a similar text behind the
Armenian Vulgate which read zpyoOeis kat rpnvis yevdpevos, for the
commentator (Ephrem ?) who is quoted in the catena is apparently aware
not only of Matthew but also of a text of Acts which included both
mpnvys and mpyoOeis, The probability that this reading in the
Armenian Vulgate goes back to an Old Syriac text of Acts is increased
by the fact that it is also found in the Georgian version.
Modern writers have mostly abandoned the attempt to reconcile Dr. Chase.
Matthew and Acts, but an important contribution by F. H. Chase in
JTS, Jan. 1912, pp. 278 ff, endeavoured to show that Papias was really
dependent on the same tradition as Acts, and that rpnvijs yevdpuevos is an
obscure medical term meaning the same as mpnoGeis. This theory was
accepted by A. von Harnack in 7hLZ., April 13, 1912, and by J. Rendel
Harris, AJTh,, Jan. 1914, pp. 127 ff.
Unfortunately the only evidence from Greek sources in favour of this
theory is derived from Zonaras, the compiler of a Byzantine dictionary,
and Euthymius Zigabenus. Zonaras says mpynvys yevopevos* ayouv
Tempnopevos, e-wykopevos, and Euthymius Zigabenus (Comment. in Matt.)
says era, ev iSid(ovte Tdrw Sue(yoe Karpov dAiyor, Kal rpnvijs yevopevos,
cit’ ov werpynopévos, eEwykopevos, ehaxure Kal Sueppdyn peoos. There
is therefore no doubt that Euthymius and Zonaras thought that Judas
swelled so that he died, but, as Harnack himself pointed out, the
connexion with Papias and the desire to harmonize is very obvious,
The truth probably is that rpyvijs is a word which became obsolete. mpyris.
It is not given in Sophocles’ Greek Lex. of the Byz. Period (which means
that Sophocles had nothing to add to the classical dictionaries), and it is
instructive that in Wisdom iv. 19 the corrector of Codex Vaticanus
added a note in the margin él mpdécwrov, showing that although he
knew what it meant he thought that it might trouble the readers of
the ms. which he was preparing.
Apart from these late and doubtful witnesses there is no Greek
evidence which bears examination ; but some importance attaches to the
~
28 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY _NOTE
fact that in Wisdom iv. 19 the Latin version translates pjfer adrovs
apwvouvs mpnveis by disrumpet illos inflatos sine voce, and that the
Armenian Version appears to have a similar translation.
ae This evidence is certainly susceptible of the interpretation that xpyvjs
Armenian. was taken to mean ‘swollen’ by the Latin and Armenian translators.
But four considerations show that this is inadequate to prove that rpyvijs
really has this meaning. (i.) Neither translator is known to us, and
certainly the makers of the Old Latin were capable of quite extraordinary
blunders: in the absence of further evidence the translation given in the
Old Latin is quite inadequate proof of the meaning of a Greek word.
(ii.) The Papias tradition, as has been seen in the case of the Armenian
catena and Vulgate, is a vera causa for a glossing translation which
in Acts interpreted zpynvjs as ‘swollen,’ and this may have affected the
translation of Wisdom. (iii.) In point of fact ‘ prostrate and silent’ in
Wisdom gives a far better meaning than ‘blown up and silent’—which
is, indeed, nonsense. So that even if it be conceded that the translator
thought that zpyveis meant inflatos, the context goes to show that he was
wrong, and there is no need to spoil the meaning of Wisdom in order
to find in Acts an dra€ Aeydpevov, supposed to be of medical origin, and
by so doing to harmonize the statement of Papias with a book which he
quite possibly had never seen.
Apart from this there is no argument in favour of Dr. Chase’s theory ;
the other passages which he adduces are all merely repetitions of the
Papias tradition, or can be preferably interpreted by giving wpyvjs its
ordinary sense. It is true that there are two verbs in Greek, ripmpnu,
to burn, and p70, to swell (see Acts xxviii. 6), but mpyvjs in
the sense of ‘prone’ is not connected with either of them, and there
is no instance of its use in Greek writers, medical or otherwise, in
this sense. It is also true that the verb y/yvopuar is used by medical
writers, but this is scarcely an unusual or strange idiom, and cannot
be said to affect the meaning of mpyvjs. In fact it seems as though
Dr. Chase had forgotten that it is impossible to prove both that arpnvijs
is a medical term and also that it is a dmra€ Xeyopevov (loc. cit.
p. 279).
Acta The evidence of the Acts of Thomas is not cogent. It says that
Thome. 4 dragon pvonbels éXdunoe Kab dwéOave kat eextOn 6 ids adrod Kat
» xoAyn. It may be admitted that éAdxnoe is probably a reminiscence
of Acts, but it no more proves that mpyvjs meant PvonGeis than
it does that ra orAdyxyva meant 6 ids adtod (see Acta Thomae,
XXXiii.).
It is certainly not a legitimate inference from the comment of
Apollinarius that he (or Papias) took zpyv7js to mean a disease. He is
busy showing that Judas did not die when he hung himself, and quotes
Acts and Papias to prove his contention: if he implies anything it is that
Judas was made prone by disease. It is entirely too rash a conjecture
that he thought that mpyv7js meant swollen by inflammation because
he quotes Papias. It should be noted that it is inaccurate to say, as
Harnack does, that Apollinarius quotes Papias to explain Acts: he quotes
ee
Iv THE DEATH OF JUDAS 29
both Acts and Papias to prove his point that Judas continued to live, and
it is to this—not to tpynvijs yevduevos—that Totro refers.
The evidence of Athanasius in his account of the death of Arius Athanasius,
points against rather than in favour of Dr. Chase’s theory. Athanasius
says 6 6¢ "Apes . . . eionAGev eis Oaxos ds Sia ypelav THs yaoTpos,
kai e€aipvns Kata Td yeypappeévov* mpnvijs yevopevos eAdKyTE péros
kat merov evOis aéyvéev. The construction is a little complicated,
because éAdknoe is part both of the sentence and of the quotation ;
but it is surely clear that weowv in the narrative answers to mpnv7s
yevopevos in the quotation. In any case it is obscure why Dr. Chase
thought that the nature of the disease “makes it reasonable to con-
clude” that Athanasius understood mpnvijs yevduevos as equivalent
to rpnoOeis, which he does not mention, rather than to meodv, which
he does (see Athanasius, Ypist. ad Serapionem de morte Arit, Migne,
P.G. xxv. 688).
It is therefore probable that Dr. Chase’s theory must be abandoned.
There is too much extant Greek literature for us lightly to accept a new
meaning for a well-known word merely because Papias, Matthew, and
Luke differ in their tradition as to the death of Judas.
Early narratives as to the death of men distinguished either for good The tradi-
or bad qualities are always liable to be coloured by the literary tradition por any 7A
as to similar persons. This fact certainly has its bearing on the story of wicked.
the death of Judas, From the complete contradiction between the three
narratives, which do not fully agree in any point and differ sharply on
most, it is clear that we have not much real recollection of fact. The
question is whether we can trace any of the literary sources of the
traditions,
The account in Matthew is surely not independent of the LXX 2 Sam. xvii.
story of the death of Ahithophel, who betrayed David; he also arjAOev
eis Tov olkov adtod ... Kal amyyéato. Of course, if the account in
Matthew be taken for history, the coincidence in language is due to the
perception of the parallel ; but if it be regarded as unhistorical, it is
probably the LXX parallel which produced the story in Matthew (ef.
2 Sam. xvii. 23).
The account in Acts is clearly influenced by Wisdom iv. 17 ff. : Wisdom iv.
oWovrat yap TeAevTIV Topod
kal od vonaovar ti €Bovretaato wept avdTov
kai eis TL nopadicato avrov 6 Kupuos.
dpovrat Kal eEovdevnoovow
avtovs 8€ 6 KUpios exyeAdoerau
kal €vovTat PETA TOUTO Eis TTOPA ATULOV
kat eis UBpev év vexpois 8.’ aidvos
ore pyfer aditods addvovs mpynveis
kat carevores adrovs ek Oepediwv.
kal ews €rxatov yeprwOjcovrat’
kal évovras év ddvvyn
kal ) pvipn adt@v aroXeirat.
2 Mace. ix.
Ps. lxix.
30 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
The whole passage is instructive, and attention may especially be
called to pyfer . . . mpnveis.
Finally, the account in Papias seems to be connected with the
account in 2 Mace. ix. 7-18. The whole passage is too long to quote,
but the following are the important parts :
ovveBn be Kal meceiv abrdy dard TOU Epparos pepopevov pol&, Kat
Svoyepet rropate mepurerovra wdvTa Ta pedn Tod Twpatos arorTpe-
Brovoba. . . . wore Kal ex Tov Gdpatos Tov SvaceBovs oKwANKaS
> a \ nw > 297 wis / ~ , > n 7
avafeiv, kat (@vTos ev Odbvats Kal dAynddow Tas OdpKas avTod Svari@rev,
brd 6€ THs Oops avTov wav 7d otpatréredov Bapiver Oar tiv campiav
. 18 ereAnrvOer yap éx’ atrdyv dixaia 7 Tov Beod Kpiors.
It is also possible that the tradition was influenced by Ps. lxix. 23
cKxotiOytwrav of dpOadrpot abrav tod pi) BAérewv, and the whole
apparatus of the death suitable for a traitor may be studied by a
comparison of the version of the death of Herod the Great in Josephus,
Antig. xvii. 6. 5, of the end of Catullus, the governor of Cyrene, in
Jos. BJ. vii. 11. 4, and the story of the death of Nadan in Ahikar.
(Cf. J. Rendel Harris, AJTh., July 1900, ‘Did Judas really commit
suicide ?’) Finally, it is not impossible that the idea of traitors swelling
up may be connected with Num. v. 21 ff., where swelling up (p70 in
the LXX) is the fate which overtakes an unfaithful wife. But attempts
to prove any conscious literary dependence of Matthew, Acts, or Papias
on any one source, such as, for instance, the story of Ahikar, are to be
deprecated. The truth probably is that there was a loose tradition of
the way in which the death of a traitor ought to correspond to his
offence. One writer put in one detail, the next added another, until
finally nearly all had been incorporated.
From a mass of unimportant contributions the follow ing stand out as
of permanent value: Th. Zahn, ‘ Papias von Hierapolis’in TASK., 1866,
pp. 680 ff. ; F. Overbeck, ‘ Uber zwei neue Ansichten von Zengnissen des
Papias’ in Z WTh., 1867, pp. 39 ff. ; A. Hilgenfeld, ‘ Papias von Hierapolis,
ZWTh, 1875, pp. 262 ff. These three form a complete Auseinander-
setzung, and Hilgenfeld gives a full list of other writings on the subject.
Zahn holds that Papias used Acts; Overbeck and Hilgenfeld take the
opposite opinion. Since then the only important treatments of the
subject are those, noted above, by J. Rendel Harris, AJTh., July 1900,
and F. H. Chase, JTS, Jan. 1912.
Notz V. Médprus
By Ropert P. Casey
In studying the history of the word pdprvus, scholars have been
principally interested in explaining how, in early Christian documents,
it gradually lost its usual sense of a witness at a trial and came to mean
Vv Maprus 31
one who testified to the truth of Christianity by sacrificing his life. In —
orienting investigation to this point, it has not been sufficiently recognized
that the transition from ‘witness’ to ‘martyr’ represents only one
development of meaning, and that several others, instead of contributing
directly to what later became the standard usage, ran parallel courses
which were briefer but which possess considerable independent interest
for the history of early Christian thought. All of these developments
begin with a metaphorical application of the legal term, but all do
not converge at the point where pdprus first clearly and unmistakably
signifies a witness who died for Christianity. It is the purpose here to
indicate several early conceptions of the Christian pdptvs which do not
necessarily involve a witnessing with death, and to suggest in what way
they may have contributed to the later idea of a Christian martyr.
In the New Testament pdprvs often has the usual sense of a witness
at a trial, as, for example, when Jesus was examined before the high
priest,” the testimony (uaprvpia) offered by the Jews was so contradictory
that even the prejudiced judge recognized its futility, but Jesus’ own
evidence made further witnesses unnecessary, Ti éTs xpelav €xopev
paptupov; At Stephen’s trial, also, witnesses were produced who later took
part in the stoning (Acts vi. 13, vii. 58), and at Jerusalem Paul told the
crowd that the high priest and elders would testify to his former zeal in
persecuting the Christians, ws kal 6 dpx.epeds paptupe’ por Kal wav Td
mpexButépiov, Acts #xxii. 5. Without immediate application to a legal
trial, but sustaining its force in metaphor, are instances like Paul’s ‘God
is my witness’ (Rom. i. 9, Phil. i. 8, 1 Thess. ii. 5), ‘You are my
witness and God’ (1 Thess. ii. 10), and a more important group of
passages in the gospels where the missionary work of the disciples
involves testimony to the truth of the gospel or witness against its
enemies. An instance of the latter is Mk. vi. 11, where the disciples are
to shake the dust from their feet when leaving an inhospitable house,
eis papttpiov avtois. An example of the former is Mk. xiii. 9, where
Jesus tells the disciples that they will be brought to trial and beaten,
and will stand before governors and kings, cis puptipiov avtois. The
following verses are also significant, where it is clear that they are to
testify under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that the subject of
their testimony is the original ‘good news’ of the imminent end of the
world and coming of the kingdom of God.
The first specific mention of Christian pdprupes is in Lk. xxiv. 46-49,
where the risen Jesus says to his disciples, orws yéypartat waGeiv Tov
1 There is a mass of literature of which the most important pieces are
F. Kattenbusch, ‘ Der Martyrertitel,’ ZNT'W. iv. (1903), pp. 111-127; K. Holl,
Gesammelte Aufsdtze (Berlin, 1928), pp. 68-115; R. Reitzenstein, ‘ Bemerkungen
zur Martyrienliteratur,’ Gottingen Nachrichten, 1916, pp. 417-467; Hermes, lii.
(1917), 442-452; G. Kriiger, ‘Zur Frage nach der Entstehung des Martyrertitels,’
ZNTW. xvii. (1916), pp. 264-269; H. Delehaye, Sanctus (Subsidia Hagio-
graphica, 17), Brussels, 1927, pp. 74-121.
2 Mark xiv. 59.
3 Cf. Matt. xxiii. 29-32; Luke xi. 48; James v. 3.
A witness at
a trial.
Metaphori-
cal exten-
sions.
Lk. xxiv.
32 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
Xpurrov Kat dvarrivat €k veKpav 7] Tpiry PEPE | kat KnpuxOijvar € eri TO
dvdpare adTov perdvouay eis (aperw a dpapriav eis mavra Ta, €Ovn, dp£dpevor
ard ‘Tepovoad jp bpeis padprupes TOUTOV. Kal idovd eLamooréhAw Ti
érayyeAiav Tov ratpds pov ef tpas* bpeis 5€ kabioate ev TH TéAE ews
0b évdvonobe €& tors Svvaytv. It is significant that there is no verb
in the phrase ipeis paprupes TovTwv, and that even if éore be supplied
with some manuscripts, the context indicates that the testifying will be
done in the future, after the disciples have been clothed with power
from on high. In view of the close relation between Luke and Acts,
and especially of the obvious connexion between Lk. xxiv. 47 ff. and
Acts i. 8, there can be no doubt that this ‘ power’ is the Spirit and that
the promise was fulfilled at Pentecost. Here, therefore, as in Mk. xiii. 9,
the pdprupes are to testify under the inspiration of the Spirit, but in
Mk. xiii. 9 the subject of their testimony is the end of the world and the
coming kingdom of God, while in Lk. xxiv. 46 ff. it is the passion and
resurrection of the Messiah and the universal opportunity for repentance,
offered in his name to all nations.
eens From this point on the emphasis is laid on the testimony about Jesus,
aderstepia al and especially his resurrection. This is clear from Peter’s speech on the
necessity of filling Judas Iscariot’s place among the apostles, Acts i. 21-22
Sef obv TOV GuveAGSvTwV Hpiv dvdpov év Tavti xpovm @ cionAGev Kat
eEjrOev ef npas 6 kipios *Inoots, apEdpevos ard tov Bartioparos
*lwdvov éws THs Huepas Hs dveAnppOn ad’ jpav, paptupa THs dvacrdcews
adbrod atv jpiv yeverOar Eva tovTwv. The Apostles then prayed and
cast lots so that the new member should be, like them, not only an eye-
witness to the risen Jesus, but also chosen by him to testify. This
theory is re-stated in Acts x. 40-43, with the additional claim that the
apostles, as witnesses, are successors to the prophets. Peter speaking
of Jesus says, ToUrov 6 Oeds Hyepev TH TpiTy Tepe Kal ewKev adrdv
euavh yever Oar, od mavti TO Aag GAAG paprvor Tois TpoKExELpoToVy-
pévous 07rd TOV Geod Hyiv, oirives cvvepadyopev kal cvveriopev adT@ peta
TO dvarrTiva adrov €k vekpOv’ Kal rapnyyetAev jyiv knptEat TO Aap
kal SvapaptipacGat Ste otrds éotiv 6 wpirpevos brd Tod Geod KpiTi)s
(évtwv Kal vexpOv. TovTw mdvTes of TpoPyrat papTupoto., apercv
dpaptiov AaBeiv did. Tod dvéparos aitod ravta Tov TirTevovTa Eis AUTO.
The qualifi- The qualification of a paptvus in Luke-Acts is that he should be one
— * of those fore-ordained of God to see the risen Jesus, and so an eye-witness
of the Resurrection: toils mpoxeyeipotovnpévors td Tov Oeod piv,
olrives cvvepdyouev Kal cvverlopev ait@ peta TO dvarrivat avrdv éx
vexpov. The reference here is evidently to Lk. xxiv. 33 ff., where the
risen Jesus appears before a company consisting of Cleopas and his
companion on the walk to Emmaus (Lk. xxiv. 13, 18, 33), the eleven
apostles, and their friends (rods évdexa kai tobs dv adtois). Two others
are also described in Acts as martyrs, Paul and Stephen, for the same
reason as the others, viz. they had seen the risen Jesus.
Paul. When Ananias explains to Paul the significance of his vision on the
Damascus road, his words are directly parallel to Acts x. 41 ff., 6 eds
n A 4 an , , n vA > “ Ww 2 “A
TOV TaTépwv Hav mpoexXetpicaTd oe yvOvat TS OEAnpa adrod Kal ideiv
rie
Madprus 33
Tov dikatov Kal dkotoa: pwviv éx Tov ordparos avTov, bTt eon papTus
ait mpds mavras dvOpwrous dv éSpakas kat jKovoas (xxii. 14 ff.), and
in a parallel account in Acts xxvi. 16 the risen Jesus says to Paul, eis
TOUTO yap SPOn col, ™poxerpiorac Bat oe darnperyy Kal pdptupa Ov Te
eldés pe Ov Te 6fOjoropai Tou 9.>
_ The case of Stephen is similar. In Acts “xxiii. Paul, having related
his own conversion and appointment as a witness (xxii. 14), tells how
he went to Jerusalem where év éxordoe: he saw Jesus, who told him to
leave the city because the people would not receive his testimony (ddr
ov mapadéEovrat cov paptupiav wept éuov). Paul replies, “‘ Lord, they
know that I imprisoned and scourged in the synagogue those who believed
in thee, and when the blood of Stephen, thy witness, was shed (kal dre
eLextvvero Td aipa Lrepdvov Tov paprupds cov . . .), I also was standing
by and consenting and keeping the garments of them that slew him.” In
what sense was Stephen a pdprvs and how did he offer his testimony ?
The answer is clear in the account of his death in Acts vii. 54 ff., “‘ And
being filled with the Holy Spirit, gazing steadfastly into heaven, he
saw the glory of God and Jesus standing on the right hand of God and
said, ‘ Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing on
the right hand of God.’”? The subject of Stephen’s testimony was his
vision of the risen Jesus to which he bore immediate witness, and in
doing so precipitated the violence of the crowd and met his death.
There is nothing to suggest that his death was an essential part of his
testimony. Stephen, like Paul, was an eye-witness to the risen Jesus,
and the fact that he died in consequence of his testimony made him no
more and no less a pdptus than Paul.
The view of Christian martyrs and their testimony which we have
been considering is characteristic of Luke-Acts, and is to some extent a
development of the earlier conception found in Mark xiii. 9. In other
writings of the New Testament somewhat different ideas are found. In
the Epistles, Paul does not use the word pdprvs in the technical sense
which it bears in Acts, and his use of paprvpetvy and its cognates shows
that he had no conception of a closed group who on other grounds than
possession of the Spirit could claim to be pdprupes Kat efoxxv to Jesus.
His conception of the content of Christian testimony is also much broader,
and includes not only the Resurrection but the whole substance of the
revelation dispensed by the Spirit.1 In 1 Thess. ii. 11 f. he reminds his
readers how he dealt with them as a father with his own children,
exhorting them and encouraging and testifying (rapaxadovrtes tas Kat
Trapapv0ovpevot Kat paptupdpevor) that they might walk worthily of
God. Here paprvpdpevor is the equivalent of ‘preaching under inspira-
tion,’ and with Eph. iv. 17 rotro ody Aéyw Kai paptipopar ev Kupi
pyKere bpas Tepurateiy Kalas kal ta €Ovyn wepirare’ recalls the dis-
tinction in 1 Cor. vii. 25 between the authority of the Spirit and the
judgement of common sense. In several passages, also, papTvpiov stands
for such inspired preaching (1 Thess. ii. 12, iv. 6; 2 Thess. i. 10; 1 Cor.
i. 6, ii. 1). Nevertheless there is nothing in Paul’s use of waprupeiv and
1 Cf. Rom. iii. 21; 1 Cor. i. 6, xv. 15; 2 Thess. i. 10.
VOL. V . D
Stephen.
Luke- Acts
in contrast
to other
books.
Paul.
John.
34 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE -
its cognates to indicate that he regarded it as having a technical
significance. It is simply a convenient metaphor, sometimes employed
in a way directly reminiscent of the Old Testament, more often to
describe the impulsive character of moral or ecstatic experience.
In the Johannine writings the word pdprvs does not appear in either
the Gospels or the Epistles, but paptvpeiv and paprupia are of more
frequent occurrence than anywhere else in the New Testament. In a
few cases the usage is conventional, but in a group of passages a
characteristic meaning appears, a hint of which is given in the Johannine
paptupeiv wept... instead of the more usual dative. In the first
chapter of the Gospel the mission of John the Baptist is described as
giving testimony. In i. 7-8 John came eis paprupiay, iva paprupyry
Tept TOU pwrds, iva. mavres Turrebowow oe avrTov. ovK iv éxelvos Td
pis, GAN iva paptupioy wept Tod pwrds, and in i. 15 John paprupe?
TEplt AVTOU Kal Kexpayev AEywv—odTOos iV O eiTwV—6 driaw pov EpxXdpEVvos
e€pmrpooGév pov yéyovev, tt tpOTds pov hv, where the antecedent of adrovd
is the Logos. In i. 19 John testifies about himself that he is neither
Christ nor Elias but ‘the voice of one crying in the wilderness,’ but in
i. 32 he gives the paprupia rept tod pwrds when he tells of the descent
of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus and concludes: kdy@ édpaka kat pepap-
TipyKa Ott obTds eoTiv 6 vids TOD Geov. John’s testimony is to a fact,
the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus, but the real paprupia is the con-
sequence of that fact: that Jesus is the Logos, the Light, the Son of
God. The contrast with the account in the Synoptics is interesting.
There the Baptist does not testify to Jesus in particular but proclaims
the coming of the Messiah, and knows nothing of the vision of the dove
which appears as a sign to Jesus and not to him. When John is in
prison he is still ignorant of Jesus’ Messiahship, and Jesus testifies con-
cerning him that he was greater than a prophet and the Elias that was
to come. In the Synoptics Jesus appears as the fulfilment of John’s
prophecies; the Fourth Gospel recognizes Jesus as the Messiah, and
the paprupia of Jesus confirms the proclamation of John. In John iii.
26 ff., when the Jews come to the Baptist and tell him that Jesus to ©
whom he had borne witness was now baptizing and attracting great
crowds, John reminds them that he had testified that he himself was
not the Christ, and that now Christ had come his work was done. ‘ He
who comes down from heaven is above all. He bears witness to what
he has seen and heard and no one receives his testimony. He who does
receive his testimony affirms that God is truthful.” John’s claim for
Jesus’ testimony is confirmed by Jesus himself, who says to the wondering
Nicodemus, ‘‘ “P speak that we do know and testify to what we have
seen, and you do not receive our testimony.” In this chapter the
testimony concerns baptism and the Spirit, but later it is the person of
Jesus and his connexion with the Father that is the central point about
which all other evidence is grouped. In v. 31 ff. Jesus compares the
testimony which the Jews ask from John concerning him with the
testimony which he has from the Father: ‘ But I have testimony better
than John’s for the works which the Father has given me to do, these
v Maprtus | 35
very works which I do testify of me that the Father has sent me, and
the Father who has sent me has testified about me.” This theme is
repeated in viii. 18 f. and in x. 25ff. The works which none other could
do (xv. 24) are the miracles which are testimony both to himself and
to the world of his prerogatives.
After Jesus’ death the work of testifying is to go on under the
direction of the Paraclete. ‘‘But when the Paraclete is come, whom I
will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from
the Father, he shall bear witness of me, and you also are bearing witness
because you have been with me from the beginning.” 1 The testimony
of the disciples and of the Spirit in the Christian life of future generations
was undoubtedly in preaching, but the idea of the Spirit in the Fourth
Gospel includes an influence on conduct as well as thought, and keeping
the commandments (John xiv.-xv.) plays a similar réle in the paptvupia of
the disciples as miracles in that of Jesus, and the emphasis on keeping
commandments in chapters xiv.-xv. shows that the paprvpia of the
disciples also included works.
Nevertheless paprupety and paprvpia in the Fourth Gospel do not
appear as technical terms, but as a natural and favourite metaphor of
the author’s to describe Jesus’ knowledge of himself and his disciples’
appreciation of his significance. There is no class of paprvpes as in
Acts who having been with Jesus from his baptism are competent to
speak of what they have seen and heard in his company. The xAnroi
bear witness to supernatural truths to which the ordinary man has no
access, and offer their evidence before a hostile world, but the case has
been prejudged in heaven, and only in the court of last appeal will the
truth prevail and the accusers stand accused.
The conception of Christian aprvs in the Apocalypse is directly con- The Apo-
nected with that of the Fourth Gospel.? As in the latter, Jesus testifies °#!YPs¢-
to heavenly facts of which he is an eye-witness, and his followers testify .
both to his person and to his teaching by proclaiming Christian doctrine
and in keeping the commandments. Christians are those who are in
possession of Jesus’ testimony, and when this is defined, Rev. xix. 10 »)
yap paptupia Incot éextiv rd rvetpa THs Tpopyreias, it means primarily
that Christians advance the truth under the inspiration of the Spirit.
It is evident that the Apocalypse was written at a time when the con-
sequences of such testifying were dangerous, and often fatal. The author
sees the Woman drunk with the blood of the saints and pdprupes,? and
beneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of
God and for the paprvpia which they had,‘ but it is quite clear that
death and paprvpia are not equivalents. Some pdprupes have had to
die for their testimony, but they died because they were pdprupes and
did not become pdprupes because they died. It is often supposed that
Antipas was a martyr in the later sense, because in ii. 13 he is called
1 John xv. 26.
2 Cf. Rev. i. 5, 9, iii. 14, vi. 9, xii. 11, 17, xvii. 6, xix. 10.
3 Rev. xvii. 6. 4 Rev. vi. 9.
The evolu-
tion of the
word.
36 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
*Avrimas 6 pdptus pov 6 rurtds, Os arextévOn rap tpiv, drov 6
Laravas xatovxei, but it is more likely that here as in other cases death
followed upon the testimony which, in this case, is presented in contrast
to the later corruptions of the Nicolaitans.
In the Johannine writings we have observed the transition from a
testimony of words to a testimony of deeds. The miracles of Jesus and
the virtuous conduct of the faithful are evidence of Christian truth. Never-
theless the element which became constitutive in the Christian concep-
tion of paprvs, viz. that the witness offers evidence not by living but by
dying, is not yet present. It appears in two passages, one in the Epistle
to the Hebrews, the other in 1 Timothy. The cloud of witnesses (Heb.
xii. 1) who testify by their faith to the promise of immortality which
awaits them are not missionaries but heroes. They have ventured much
and suffered much, and their deeds are the evidence of things hoped for
but not clearly perceived. The other passage is 1 Tim. ii. 5ff., where
the author explains that the death of Jesus was the evidence to that
generation of the possibility of universal salvation, «is yap Geds, efs Kal
pecityns Geod kat avOpdirwv, advOpwros Xpwrrds “Inoots, 6 dobs éavrdv
dvtiAvtpov trép mdvTwv, TO papTipiov Katpois idiows, eis O ereOnv eyo
Kipvé kat dréatoAos: ddjOeav AéEyw ev Xprore od Pevsouat, SiddoKaXdos
eOvav ev Tiare: Kat dAnOeia, This isthe firstcase of martyrdom in the later
sense. Here the death of Jesus is the testimony of which Paul is the herald
and apostle, and Jesus offers the evidence by the sacrifice of his life.
We have shown that before the great persecutions, the general idea
of Christian pdprupes as inspired witnesses to Christian truth played a
considerable réle, and that when the persecutions began and many
witnesses must die for their testimony, they retained their title without
altering its meaning. At the time of the Apocalypse a pdprus is a
witness whether he lived or died for the truth to which he testified, but
shortly after this paptupeiv begins to have the sense of dying for the
faith,! and the distinction between pdptvs and duodoyjrys ? indicates a
growing tendency to reserve the former word for those who have given
their lives. The reason for this specialization of meaning appears to be
a natural development of the times. From the beginning pdprvs and
paptupety were connected with the idea of Christian propaganda, but
before the persecutions the usual methods of propaganda were public
preaching and the realization of the Christian moral ideal, coupled with
a zeal for Christian doctrine. The use of these words to describe these
forms of activity persisted for some time, but during the persecutions
external circumstances provided a new and sensational way of testifying
to Christian truth, viz. admitting one’s allegiance to Christ with the
assurance that death would follow. This simple admission was more
telling and, as we know from abundant evidence, produced a much
greater impression upon pagans as testimony to Christianity than many
hours of preaching or years of quiet conscientious living. The Christians,
1 Cf. 1 Clem. v. 4.
2 Delehaye, op. cit. pp. 85 ff. Ibid. pp. 109 ff.
vI THE TWELVE AND THE APOSTLES ~ 37
therefore, who died for their admission became witnesses par excellence,
although the term was still occasionally applied to those who continued
to witness in the old way.
Notre VI. Tue TweEtvi AND THE APOSTLES
By Krrsopr LAKE
1. The Twelve
The Twelve are mentioned in the Marcan narrative of the synoptic
Gospels as having been appointed by Jesus, and they are referred to
nine times as of dédexa without the addition of the word amécroAos
(Mark iv. 10, vi. 7, ix. 35, x. 32, xi. 11, xiv. 10, 17, 20, 43). They are
mentioned by this title in Matthew only in six places, all apparently taken
from Mark, the same number of times in Luke, and four times in John
(vi. 67, 70, 71, and xx. 24), They are, however, only mentioned once
in Acts by this title (Acts vi. 2) and only once in the Pauline Epistles
(1 Cor. xv. 5), where they appear as the witnesses of the Resurrection.
In the non-Marcan parts of the synoptic Gospels the most significant
passage is Mt. xix. 28 (= Luke xxii. 30), where, though the phrase ‘the
Twelve’ is not used, the promise is made to the disciples that they shall
sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (See Vol. I.
pp. 295 ff.)
The choice of the Twelve is related in Mark iii. 14 ff. = Matt. x. 2 ff. Mark.
= Luke vi. 13 ff.
The original meaning of the narrative, as given in Mark, is that the
Twelve were the special lieutenants of Jesus, appointed by him to preach
and to exorcise demons. In chap. vi. 7 Mark gives an account of a
special mission in which the Twelve were sent out, by twos, in fulfilment
of their function, with a few simple instructions for their conduct. The
successful return of the Twelve to Jesus is not narrated until Mark vi.
30, the story being interrupted to make room for the long episode of
the death of John the Baptist.
Matthew telescopes together Mark iii. 14 ff. and Mark vi. 7 ff., and Matthew.
adds considerably to the address given by Jesus to the Twelve.
Luke takes over the Marcan account of the appointment of the Luke.
Twelve in its proper place (so that Mark iii. 13-19 = Luke vi. 12-16),
but significantly enough he omits the Marcan statement of the function
of the Twelve—to preach and to cast out demons—and instead says
that Jesus called them Apostles (which Mark does not say 4), obviously in
anticipation of his second book—<Acts. Later on, when he comes to it,
he also takes over from Mark the account of the mission of the Twelve
1 There can be little doubt but that in Mark iii. 14 the addition ods kai
dmocréXous dvduacev is a Western non-interpolation from Luke. It is found in
NSBCAO and the Caesarean minuscules but not in the Old Latin or Old Syriac.
Matt. x. 5-8.
38 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY nore
described in Mark vi. and the address given them by Jesus (so that
Mark vi. 7-13=Luke ix. 1-6), and once more he has considerably
rewritten the rather simple sentences of Mark. Luke was also acquainted
with some of the additional matter which Matthew added to the address
of Jesus to the Twelve. But he put this into a separate context—the
further mission of seventy apostles'—which is quite peculiar to him.
Moreover, the sections which Luke took from Matthew’s additional
matter do not contain any of the significant paragraphs, On the other
hand some of the paragraphs which are found both in Matthew and in
Luke are considerably longer in Luke than in Matthew.
The significant verses, found in Matthew but not in Luke, are these :
“Depart not into a way of Gentiles, but go rather to the lost sheep of
the house of Israel. And as ye go make proclamation that the Kingdom
of Heaven is at hand. Heal sick, raise dead, cleanse lepers, cast out
demons ; freely ye received, freely give (x. 5-8). . . . And when they
persecute you in this city flee to the next; for verily I say to you, Ye
shall not finish the cities of Israel before the Son of Man come (x. 23).”
The problem of these verses is dealt with in Vol. I. pp. 314 ff., and
though a heavy stream of criticism has flowed under the bridges since
its publication I do not see any necessity for change on any important
point except one.? I then argued that the gospel of Matthew represented
a conflation of the views of Jewish and Gentile Christians (cf. esp.
Matt. xxiv. 14 (=Mark xiii. 10) and Matt. x. 5, 23). This still
seems to me to be true, but whereas I then thought that the significant
parts of Matt. x. were the propaganda of Jewish Christians, not the
words of Jesus, I now incline to think*® that they probably represent
1 This may be a fragment of history which Mark has omitted, but unlike the
Twelve the Seventy appear to have played no prominent part in the growth of
the Church. Even their names are unknown to us, and the lists of pseudo-
Dorotheos and others (conveniently published in Schermann’s Propheten- und
Apostellegenden) are obviously late and valueless compilations. It may be
plausibly suggested that the Seventy are merely an echo of the Seventy Elders
appointed by Moses in Numbers xi. 16 ff., but they are more probably connected
with the belief (based on Gen. x.) that there are seventy nations of mankind.
2 On which my opinion was changed by Burkitt’s writings, public and
private, and by his conversation.
3 The hesitating nature of this phrase is not merely formal. No final
_ judgement can be made, because it ought to be based on a previous investigation
into Matthew’s and Luke’s methods of composition and of their relation to each
other. Did Matthew ‘ collect’ the Sermon on the Mount, or did Luke ‘separate’
its component parts? Did either know the work of the other? Who can
really solve these puzzles? The last half-century has really dealt very satis-
factorily with the relation between Mark and the other synoptists, though the
question of the original text of Mark as used by Matthew and Luke has been
largely neglected, but the same cannot be said for the study of Matthew and
Luke. Here almost everything remains to be done, and reconstructions of Q
have been too often accepted as final, instead of as preliminary to the necessary
study of details. (Cf. A. von Harnack, Sayings of Jesus, pp. x.-xiv.)
‘* THE TWELVE AND THE APOSTLES 39
genuine words of Jesus which may have been known to Luke and
excluded by him as too contradictory to the ‘ Mission to the Gentiles.’
In the Marcan narrative there is no suggestion that the Twelve were
regarded as the foundation of a new organization. They are preachers
who are sent out by Jesus in fulfilment of his own mission. If the
verses quoted above from Matthew be taken as belonging to a primitive
document they go even further. They mean that when the Twelve
were sent out on their mission Jesus expected the parousia of the Son of
Man before they finished their task. What was to be their position in
the future, when the Son of Man did come? The answer of the
document called Q is clear—they would be assessors at the Judgement.
“Ye shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel”
(Matt. xix. 28 = Luke xxii. 30). The main argument for thinking the
Marcan-Matthaean concept of the work of the Twelve and their eschato-
logical function to be primitive is that it was so soon falsified by the
event that it can hardly be fiction. (See also below, p. 393.) Who
would have invented it? Cut bono?
But in the early chapters of Acts, and in the later Christian literature,
the Twelve have a different function and a different name. ‘They are
called ‘ Apostles’—a very strange word in Greek, though familiar in
English—and their main function is to give the message about Jesus,
rather than the message of Jesus, which is not mentioned in any of the
missionary sermons quoted in Acts, or referred to in the Pauline Epistles.
Moreover—and this is really the heart of the whole problem of Christian
origins—the Twelve Apostles are no longer merely healers, exorcists,
and the announcers of the End and of repentance opening the door to
the New Age (as Mark vi. and Matt. x. make them), or even witnesses
to Jesus, but in addition to all this are the inspired and miraculously
powerful heads of a new society—the Church—endowed with the power
to confer the gift of the Holy Spirit, which they had themselves received
from the risen and glorified Jesus.
The earlier
view of the
Twelve.
The later
view.
This Church is a prominent, probably the central feature of the genera] The Church.
Weltanschauung of Acts. Its constituent elements are indicated by the
variety of names used to describe its members (for a full discussion of
which see Addit. Note 30); but perhaps the most significant description
of them, at least for the present purpose, is the phrase cw(djevo.—
another of those remarkable words which did so much to make history
by the varying connotation which they had for Greek or Jewish ears.
To the original Jewish Christians ‘the saved’ meant those who were
‘safe’ at the Judgement and would thus pass into the life of the World to
Come; to unconverted Greeks it meant those whose nature had been
changed from human and mortal to divine and immortal; to Greek
Christians it had both connotations. At a later stage, visible in Acts
and in the Epistles, teachers combined these with the idea of ‘the Way,’
and so added to Greek Christianity the typically Jewish concept of the
value of conduct, and of salvation as partly conditional on a good life.
Nevertheless, in spite of the variation produced by this and other conno-
tations, the most important aspect of the Church, as it was destined to
‘The saved.’
The Twelve
in Acts i.-v.
and else-
where.
The
historical
nature of
the Twelve.
40 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
be throughout its history, is already clear in Acts. It is the society of
the ‘saved,’ who have attained salvation by the Holy Spirit? given by
the risen Jesus to the Apostles, and afterwards by the Apostles to those
who are worthy.
Thus the main feature of Catholic Christianity—the existence of an
Apostolic Church—is clearly visible in the Acts and Epistles. Between
them, however, there is one significant difference. In Acts i.-v. the
Church is governed by the Twelve, and the Twelve are the ‘ Apostles.’
So much importance is attached to the number that Matthias is elected
to fill the place left empty by the defection of Judas the Traitor. This
theory that the Church was governed by the Twelve is perpetuated in
the great mass of Didactic Literature, and became the dominant theory
of Catholicism. But in the Pauline Epistles, though the Church is as
important and as supernaturally constituted under Apostolic leadership
as in Acts i-v., the Apostles are not the ‘Twelve,’ and there is no trace
of any special limitation of the number of the Apostles. Moreover, this
is not because Paul is ignorant of the Twelve, but in spite of the fact
that he knows them. Similarly, in Acts, after the beginning of
chapter vi. the Twelve are not mentioned. The leaders of the Church
are the ‘ Apostles,’ but their head is James the brother of the Lord, not
one of the ‘Twelve’ This agrees with the Pauline view, but not with
Acts i.-v. Here too, as in so many cases, Acts appears to be a com-
bination of ideas and theories, as well as of sources and traditions.
Influenced by this double usage of the word Apostle, some critics have
argued that there is no historic foundation for the story of the appointment
of the Twelve. This theory seems unnecessary. The historical fact is
that the Apostles, in the narrower sense, are represented in Acts as
preaching the resurrection of Jesus. Apart from the limitation of
number, which is for the moment unimportant, there can be no doubt but
that this is probably true. The resurrection of Jesus was by common
consent the centre of the apostolic preaching. If the synoptic Gospels had
represented Jesus as choosing twelve disciples in order to preach his
resurrection, there would be some reason for saying that this was an
attempt to give the authority of the master to the preaching of the
disciples. But what are the facts? That Mark represents Jesus as
commissioning the Twelve, that they might be with him, and that he
might send them out to preach and to have power to cast out devils. To
preach, that is to say, the message which he himself was announcing,
the coming of the Kingdom and the necessity of repentance (Mk. iii. 14).
Similarly, according to a narrative peculiar to Matthew but connected by
him with the appointment of the Twelve (Mt. x. 5 ff.), it was specially
enjoined on them to preach only in Israel, and their commission was to
heal the sick, to raise the dead, to cleanse the lepers, to cast out devils.
As they went they were to announce that the Kingdom of Heaven was at
1 Is this quite as true of the earlier as it is of the later parts of Acts? Had
Philip’s converts in Samaria attained salvation before they received the Spirit ?
(See further Additional Notes 9 and 11.)
vI THE TWELVE AND THE APOSTLES 41
hand. They would raise opposition by this preaching, but before they
had gone through the cities of Israel the Son of Man would come.
Could there be anything less like the course of history, or the message
which they actually preached, as represented in Acts or by the Epistles of
Paul? If Acts and the Epistles represent the actual preaching of the
Apostles, Mark iii. 14 and Mt. x. 5 ff. cannot have been invented in order
to give the authority of Jesus to the preaching of the Apostles. It is of
course possible that in the original form of the story the instructions
of Jesus were given to all his disciples and not to a limited number, but
why in that case should the story of the appointment of the Twelve have
been so closely connected with it? Were it an invention it would surely
be possible to see the reason for which it was put in.
2. The Names of the Twelve
The question of the names of the Twelve stands on a different level.
It is quite possible that the actual names were lost and that there is
confusion in the tradition. This can be seen in the first place from a
double tradition of the names of the Apostles.
In Mt. x. 2, Mk. iii. 16, Lk. vi. 14, Acts i, 13, there are given The N.T.
lists of the Twelve, with only the small differences which can be seen in ™*4ition.
the following table :
MARK. Mart. LUKE. Acts,
Peter Peter Peter Peter
James Andrew Andrew John.
John James James James
Andrew John John Andrew
Philip Philip Philip Philip
Bartholomew Bartholomew Bartholomew Thomas
Matthew Thomas Matthew Bartholomew
Thomas Matthew Thomas Matthew
James of James of James of James of
Alphaeus Alphaeus Alphaeus Alphaeus
Thaddaeus 2 Thaddaeus Simon the Simon the
Zealot Zealot
Simon the Simon the Judas of Judas of
Kananean Kananean James James
Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot
The variations are only in the order of names, except that Thaddaeus
is replaced in Luke and Acts by Judas of James.
A curiously different tradition seems preserved in two possibly
independent forms in the Apostolic Church Orders and in the Epistola
Apostolorum.
1 Or possibly Lebbaeus: both in Mark and Matthew there is much early
variation in the text. But Thaddaeus seems the earlier reading, and Lebbaeus
may be merely a Graecized form of Levi, in ignorance of, or in contradiction to,
the theory which identified Levi with Matthew.
The
tradition in
Apost. KO.
42 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
(i.) The Apostolic Church Orders (Apostolische Kirchenordnwng) is a
document of uncertain age. It is probably not later than 300 or earlier
than 150. It is found in Greek in a manuscript at Vienna (cod. Vindobon.
hist. gr. 7 [formerly 45]), and partially in manuscripts in Rome (Oftobon.
gr. 408) and in Moscow (Biblioth. synod. 125). It is also preserved in
the corpus of Church law found in Latin in the very ancient Verona
palimpsest (Hauler, pp. 93-101) and in Syriac, Arabic, Bohairic, Sahidic,
and Ethiopic. The first edition is that of J. W. Bickell, Geschichte des
Kirchenrechts, 1843, pp. 107 ff. Later editions are by P. de Lagarde,
Reliquiae juris eccl. antig. Graec., 1856, pp. 74 ff. (not to be confused with
his edition in Bunsen’s Analecta Ante-Nicaena, 1854, which is a retransla-
tion into Greek from the Coptic) ; J. B. Pitra, Juris eccl. Graecorum historia
et monumenta, 1864, vol. i. pp. 75 ff. (a text to be recommended, among
other things, for the beauty of its printing); Hilgenfeld, Novwm Testa-
mentum extra canonem receptum, 1866; A. Harnack, ‘Lehre der zwolf
Apostel,”’ TU. it. 1, 1884; and F. X. Funk, Doctrina duodecim
apostolorum, 1887.
The relation of this document to the general body of pseudo-apostolic
literature is obscure and complex. It appears to have been part of a
collection containing the Didascalia, the Avostolic Church Orders, and
the Egyptian Church Orders, of which the last was recently identified by
Schwartz, and independently but a little later by Connolly, as the Traditio
Apostolica of Hippolytus (see Connolly, ‘ The So-called Egyptian Church
Orders’ in Teats and Studies, viii. 4). This collection became the foundation
of the Apostolic Constitutions in the fourth century, and also is found in
a somewhat different composition in which it was combined with the
xvi titlot of John Scholasticus, and passed into the Syriac Octateuch of
Clement and other oriental books of canonical law.
The Apostolic Church Orders was generally but not always included
in these collections. Its history has been elucidated by Benesevic’s
treatise on the xvi titloc, unfortunately accessible only in Russian, and
in Ed. Schwartz’s very valuable Uber d. pseudo-apostol. Kirchenordnungen,
1910. It is important to note that though the Apostolic Church Orders
has been printed by most editors as a separate document, it is not so
found in any manuscript or version. It is, however, sufficiently clear
from its nature that it was originally independent. Its origin was
discussed first by Krawutzcky in his ‘ Uber das altkirchliche Unterrichts-
buch, die zwei Wege oder die Entscheidung des Petrus,’ Theol. Quartal-
schrift, 1882, iii. pp. 359 ff., in which he indicated clearly the general
characteristics of a document which lay behind the present one. One
year later Bryennius published the Didache, which proved to be not
exactly the document indicated by Krawutzcky, but an immediate
descendant of it.
The list of In the light of this discovery A. von Harnack wrote his magistral
ton '" <Lehre der zwélf Apostel’ in 7'U. ii. 1 in 1884, in which on pp. 193 ff.
he dealt with the Apostolic Church Orders. For the present purpose it is
unnecessary to pursue all the details of his analysis. The point which is
important is that an early editor made use of a list of the apostles which ran:
vI THE TWELVE AND THE APOSTLES 43
John, Matthew, Peter, Andrew, Philip, Simon, James, Nathanael,
Thomas, Cephas, Bartholomew, Jude of James.
The greater part of the Didache, rather freely edited, was distributed
among these Apostles, with the exception of Judas of James, who was
given nothing. Harnack aud others therefore concluded that the redactor
made use of an early uncanonical list of the Apostles containing only
eleven names, Judas of James being a later interpolation, but no light
was thrown on the identity of this source or on its affiliations until the
discovery of another document.
(ii.) In 1895 there appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Prussian The
Academy an account of ‘Eine bisher unbekannte altchristliche Schrift in phage
koptischer Sprache,’! by Carl Schmidt, at that time a scholar of the German
Imperial Archaeological Institute in Egypt. Schmidt was helped in
further research on this document by Pierre Lacau, the Egyptologist, but
a full publication was delayed in the hope of wider knowledge, which
came gradually.
The first step was the discovery in Vienna by Dr. Bick, the librarian,
of a palimpsest, originally from Bobbio, of a Latin version of the same
document.?. Schmidt then determined to publish the Coptic text, and
in 1910 this had already been printed, when the present Provost of
Eton, Dr. James, noticed an article by the Abbé Guerrier in the Revue de
VOrient Chrétien, entitled ‘Un testament (éthiopien) de Notre Seigneur et
Sauveur Jésu-Christ en Galilée.’ He wrote to Schmidt, who in turn
corresponded with Guerrier, and it was found that this Ethiopic document,
which Dillmann had known but not thought worth publication, was
identical with the Coptic apocryphon. Schmidt once more delayed his
publication until Guerrier was ready, and it was not until 1913 that
Guerrier published the text, with a French translation, in the Patrologia
Orientalis of Graffin and Nau.®
Finally in 1919 Schmidt published in volume xliii. of the Texte und
Untersuchungen* a parallel translation of the Epistola from Coptic and
Ethiopic, with full discussions of all the questions connected with it.
Guerrier’s publication had never attracted much attention, partly
because it was unaccompanied by any introduction indicating its im-
portance, but chiefly because its title was misleading and its contents
composite. The title ‘Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’
implies some connexion with the Testamentum Domini of Rahmani®; but
the opening chapters dissipate this notion, for they contain merely an
1 Sitzwngsberichte der phil.-hist. Classe vom 20 Juni, 1895.
2 Wiener Palimpseste, I. Teil. Cod. Palat. Vindobonensis 16, olim Bobbiensis
(Sttzungsber. d. k. Akad. d. Wissensch. in Wien, phil.-hist. Klasse, Band clix.
7 Abteil.), and Hauler, Wiener Studien, 1908, Bd. xxx. pp. 308 ff.
3 Vol. ix. part 3, Le Testament en Galilée de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ.
* The title is Gesprdche Jesu mit seinen Jiingern nach der Auferstehung,
ein katholisch-apostolisches Sendschreiben des 2ten Jahrhunderts ; but in the body
of the book Schmidt always speaks of the document as the EZpistola Apostolorwm.
5 Testamentum domini nostri Jesu Christi, 1899.
44 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
apocalypse, important mainly for its delineation of Antichrist. Guerrier
seems to have been ignorant of Schmidt’s preliminary notice in the Berlin
Sitzungsberichte, and probably only the interest of M. R. James in the
Antichrist led him to notice the book and read it through, and discover
that in the middle its character suddenly changed. But Schmidt now
showed beyond all doubt that the title ‘Testament of the Lord’ was
taken from the ordinary book of that name, which was accidentally
associated with the other document in the Ethiopic copy. He also shows
—what is self-evident when it is pointed out—that the first eleven
chapters of Guerrier’s document have nothing in common with the
remainder of it, which contains an Epistola Apostolorum identical with the
Coptic document. The Coptic is an incomplete manuscript of a better
text, while the Ethiopic is a complete manuscript of a worse text. Both
are based, directly or indirectly, on a lost Greek original from which the
Latin palimpsest, unfortunately only a small fragment, was also derived.
The date of this document is tolerably certain, and greatly enhances
its value. It states that the second advent will take place in the year
120 after Christ, which from the context seems to mean 120 years
after the Resurrection. This is the date given by the Coptic; the
Ethiopic puts 150 instead of 120, which seems to be an attempt to give
the date in terms of a chronology beginning from the birth of Christ,
but even if the Ethiopic be the correct text, a document belonging to
the year 180 in our reckoning is a sufficiently valuable discovery. In
general there can be little doubt but that before 180 is the latest date to
which the Hpistola can be referred, and before 150 seems to me more
probable.
The provenance of the Epistola is doubtful, though Schmidt’s view
that it comes from Ephesus probably has the most arguments in its
favour. The points on which discussion is always likely to turn are the
references to Cerinthus, which indicate that Cerinthus and the Epistola
belong to the same locality, and—unfortunately for the present purpose
—the list of the Apostles.
Schmidt has a long excursus on Cerinthus and the Alogi, in which he
controverts Eduard Schwartz, who in 1914 had argued that the tradition
of Irenaeus linking Cerinthus with Ephesus was quite untrustworthy.?
1 Can Papias have been referring to the Zpistola when he expressed his famous
preference for oral tradition to that which was written ?
2 Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1914, pp. 210 ff. Schmidt
endeavours to refute Schwartz and re-establish the old tradition, incidentally
dealing at length with the question of the Alogi. In this he may be right,
and it is perhaps more probable that Cerinthus belongs to Ephesus than
elsewhere, but the whole question may well be re-opened. Whether, however,
he is right in thinking that Cerinthus cannot have been a Judaist is more
doubtful, and the whole question is still full of difficulties. Was it impossible
for a man to be a Judaizer and a Docetist at the same time? Before this
question can be answered we shall probably be brought back once more to the
problem whether Ignatius in his epistles was attacking one party or two; but
to discuss these points here would be to wander too far afield.
vI THE TWELVE AND THE APOSTLES 45
The connexion of Cerinthus with Ephesus and of the Epistola with
Cerinthus is the main argument which Schmidt brings forward, but he
also attaches great weight to the fact that the Hpistola commands the
celebration of the Passover in commemoration of the death of Christ,
and connects this with the Quartodecimans of Asia.
The main argument against this reasoning is the generally supposed
connexion of the Apostolic Church Orders with Egypt, and the similarity
of the list of the Apostles in the Hpistola and in the Apost. KO. Neverthe-
less the reasons for connecting the Apost. KO. with Egypt are very flimsy—
there is in fact nothing in them which indicates their origin.
The Lpistola enumerates the Apostles as follows : The list
John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, ya
Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, Kephas. in the
Schmidt argues that this is the source of the list in the Apost. KO. erie
Certainly both lists have eleven names, thus implying that though
recognizing the defection of Judas Iscariot, they knew nothing of the
choice of a successor. Moreover, the only difference in the names is that
Simon is replaced by Judas Zelotes, and that this is not an accident is
suggested by the similar reading of the Old Latin codices a bg h in
Matthew x. 3 which reads Judas Zelotes instead of Thaddaeus, who in
Matthew seems to be substituted for Judas of James in Luke, and comes
immediately before Simon the Zealot. Schmidt thinks that this list in
the Epist, Apost. is the source of that in the Apostolic Church Orders
in spite of the difference of order. Certainly it represents a cognate
tradition. But the possibility of a common source seems to me not
inconsiderable. (See Baumstark, ‘Alte und neue Spuren eines ausser-
kanonischen Evangeliums [vielleicht des Agypterevangeliums]’ in the
ZNTW., 1913, and for a curious point of connexion with Hippolytus see
the same writer's ‘ Hippolytus und die ausserkanonische Evangelienquelle’
in ZNTW., 1914, pp. 332 ff.)
Assuming, then, that the Epist. Apost, and the Apost. KO. at least
represent a tradition either Ephesian or Egyptian in origin other than
the canonical, it may be asked whether it has any claims to serious
consideration. The decisive question is clearly the differentiation of Peter
from Kephas.1_ This cannot be right, and seems to show that the list is
inferior to the canonical. But the question may well be raised whether
the absence of any allusion to Matthias as the successor of Judas Iscariot
does not indicate that the story in Acts i. was either unknown to the
compiler or was rejected by him.
It is obvious that both these traditions may contain some doublets, Doublets.
This is certainly true of the second list if Kephas be really identical with
Peter. It is possibly also true of the list in the Gospels, for Thomas can
1 On the history of this differentiation see G. La Piana, Harvard Theological
Review, vol, xiv. (1921), pp. 187 ff. It was often used to remove from Peter
the stigma implied by Gal. ii. 11. It was not Peter but Kephas who was
KaTeyvwopevos,
*AmdaroAos
in classical
Greek.
The LXX.}
Josephus.
The N.T.
Mark.
46 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
searcely be a real name since it merely means ‘twin,’ and the old Syriac
tradition says that he was Jude the Lord’s brother. And if Lebbaeus be
the right form of the text in Mark iii. 18 it probably is a Greek method
of writing Levi, who is usually identified with Matthew. It is perhaps
unprofitable to speculate far in the elucidation of the names in the lists
of the Apostles, for certainty is unattainable ; but it is probably true that
the confusions imply some very early loss of exact knowledge of the
names,
3. The Word ’AréoroXos
In every language there is a word to describe a person who is sent
by the king or by the magistrates to act as their authorized representative.
The Aramaic word for such persons is omw, There is nothing un-
usual about it, and if Jesus sent out authorized representatives as Mark
says that he did, this is the name which he would naturally have used.
In the New Testament this is generally rendered into Greek by dzé-
atoXos, but this word, though etymologically correct, is not customary
in non-Christian Greek.
The word dmécroXos has had a curious history. The cognate word
admootoAy was used in classical Greek to describe a mission, and the
verb drooréX\Aw was common in this sense. “AmdorodXos is found only
once in the sense of a messenger, but is common as an adjective in the
phrase ¢rdéoroXAa wAoia, and so came to be used substantivally with the
meaning of ‘a fleet,’ while drooroAe’s meant an admiral. In classical
Greek of the later period dréaroXos has no other meaning than ‘ fleet,’
though Hesychius says that it could mean an admiral, giving the
definition drécroAos, orparnyds Kata. tAODY TEepmdpevos.
For déaroXos in the sense of ‘envoy’ there is in classical Greek
only the example, referred to above, from Herodotus i. 21; cf. v. 38.
It is also found in this sense only once in the LXX (3 Kings xiv. 6) in
reference to Ahijah, kal éyd eius dadorodos (mov) mpds oe oKAnpés.
This is the more remarkable because the LXX uses drooréAAw almost
to the exclusion of réuzw, and dmdéaToAos would have been expected as
the correlative substantive, but dyyeAos seems to have been consistently
preferred.
*AréoroXos is equally rare in Josephus, but its one occurrence is
important, for in Antig. xvii. 11. 1 Josephus speaks of Varus, the head
of a delegation of Jews, as dréatoXos atbtov.
In the New Testament the word appears at first to be widely used,
but analysis suggests that it is a Pauline-Lucan word, or at least one
which owed its general use to Pauline-Lucan influence.
In Mark it is once used in describing the Twelve, whom according
to Mark iii. 14 Jesus had chosen iva drooréAAy adtods Knpiooev Kai
exerv eLovoiav exBddAXAew 7a Sarpdvia. When they return from this
mission they are described in vi. 30 as of amwéatoAo.. The word
obviously refers to the mission which had been ended by their return,
not to any future offices in the Church ; it may be a description rather
than a title. Mark, indeed—and it is one of the most valuable
EE 5
VI THE TWELVE AND THE APOSTLES 47
indications of its early date and general trustworthiness—has no-
where any suggestion that Jesus contemplated the foundation of a
‘Church,’ The ministry of Jesus, according to Mark, was a campaign
(i.) against demons and disease, (ii.) to induce men to repent, that they
might be worthy of the Kingdom which would come so soon. The
Twelve are not an official class in a new society, but emissaries sent
out by Jesus to deliver his message.
_ In Matthew the word dmrdécroXos does not appear except in x, 2-5 in Matthew.
the abbreviation of the Marcan account of the choice of the Twelve.
In Luke it is found five times (Luke ix, 10, xi. 49, xvii. 5, xxii, 14, Luke.
xxiv. 10), and it is frequently used in Acts and in the Pauline Epistles
(twenty-five times, not counting the Pastoral Epistles).
In John dwécroAos is only used once (John xiii. 16), where it is John.
apparently a paraphrase of the saying given in Matt. x. 24.
In the Apocalypse dwréaroAos is used three times. (i.) In ii, 2 of Apocalypse.
‘those who call themselves apostles, and are not, where the meaning
clearly is ‘Christian missionary’ as it is in the Didache. (ii.) In xviii.
20, where apostles and prophets are joined together much as they are
in the Didache. (iii.) In xxi. 14, where the ‘twelve apostles’ are the
foundation-stones of the New Jerusalem, the Church.
Thus we have the extremely interesting linguistic fact that the The origin
Pauline-Lucan branch of Christian literature seems to have popularized Spain ig
and given a technical meaning to a word which was otherwise scarcely
used, except in a different sense, in the whole course of previous Greek
literature, At the same time, though the popularity of the word is
doubtless due to Pauline-Lucan influence, Josephus, the Apocalypse,
and perhaps the single example of the word in Mark, forbid the
hypothesis that its original is Pauline-Lucan. The rarity of the word
in John and in Matthew shows that it can hardly be quite primitive, but
it is very early, and its place of origin is uncertain. What was the place
of which the usage affected Paul, Luke, and the Apocalypse ?
Possibly dréaroXos was used in this sense in the Koine Greek, and
there was perhaps an underground stream of popular usage connecting
Herodotus and Luke. This, however, seems unlikely, and I am inclined
to think that the sudden emergence of the word is one of those happy
accidents which happen so frequently in the history of language. Mark, I
think, correctly represents the fact that the Twelve, in consequence of their
mission of preaching in Galilee, were called mn>w ; they had been ‘sent’?
by Jesus, and they, or such of them as remained, held a position of prestige.
How should that word be translated? dyyeAos was the LXX rendering,
and is probably used in the Apocalypse of those who in Pauline-Lucan
phraseology would be termed the ‘apostles’ of the churches (see Rev. i.
20, ete.). But dyyeAos was coming more and more to mean ‘angel,’ and
so another word was desirable, but why did Mark hit upon dadoroAos
as the right word ?
1 Professor Burkitt points out to me that it is worthy of note ‘‘that the best
attested claim made about himself by Jesus is that he was one ‘sent.’ See
Mark ix. 37, Luke iv. 18, Matt. xv. 24, John v. 38, etc.”
Harnack’s
theory.
The Jewish
Patriarch.
The Codex
Theo-
dosianus,
The Jewish
Apostoli in
Christian
literature.
Jerome,
48° THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY vores
It has been suggested, notably by Harnack in his Mission und
Ausbreitung, ed. 4, pp. 340 ff., that the word was first adopted by Jews,
but the evidence, though interesting, scarcely amounts to demonstration.
The facts are as follows:
After the destruction of Jerusalem, and the extinction of the
high-priestly Sadducean families, the leadership of the Jews passed to
the rabbinical Pharisaic families, and one of them—that of Hillel,
to which Gamaliel belonged—was recognized by the Romans as the
official head of the Jews. In Hebrew he was called ‘ Nasi,’ and in Greek
sometimes ¢Ovdpxns, but oftener watpidpxns.1 The exact date at which
this ‘ Patriarchate’ was instituted is unknown, but it existed from the
second to the fourth century, when it was suppressed, and the leadership
of Judaism tended to pass more and more to the Exilarch of Babylon,
who was treated with great respect by the Persians. (For the very
interesting details of the Exilarchate see S. Funk, Die Juden in
Babylonien.)
From the Codex Theodosianus it appears that the ‘ Patriarch’ had official
representatives who were entrusted especially with the bringing back
of the awrum coronartum which the Romans sanctioned as a contribution
from the Jews outside Palestine. These were called apostoli (superstitionts
indignae est, ut archisynagogt sive presbytert Iudaeorwm vel quos tpst apostolos
vocant, ete., Cod. Theod. xvi. 8. 14 [April 11, a.D. 399]), and in the
twenty-fifth letter of Julian the Apostate (204 in the edition of Bidez
and Cumont, p. 281) the contribution collected is probably called
drootoXy, though it is possible that here, as in Epiphanius, the word
means ‘the function of the Apostles.’ The text of the letter says ézi
tréov 8 ipads ebwxeirAar BovAdspevos rdv ddeApdv “IovAoyv, tov aidect-
poratov ratpidpynv, Tapyveca Kal tiv Aeyopevnv [evar] wap tpiv
drootohivy KwAvOjvar kTA. But it should be noted that the authen-
ticity of this letter is disputed. It is accepted by Juster, Les Juifs
dans Vempire romain, vol. i. p. 159, but rejected by Bidez and Cumont,
p. 279.
The existence of these apostoli can be traced in the fourth century
in Jerome, Eusebius, and Epiphanius :
Jerome says in his commentary on Gal. i. 1 (Migne, P.L. xxvi. 311):
“ Usque hodie a patriarchis Iudaeorum apostolos mitti, a quibus etiam tunc
reor Galatas depravatos Legem observare coepisse, vel certe alios de Iudaeis
credentibus in Christum perrexisse Galatiam, quit assererent Petrum quoque
wpostolorum principem, et Jacobum fratrem Domini, Legis caeremonias
custodire. Ad distinctionem ttaque eorum qui mittuntur ab hominibus, et sui,
qui sit missus a Christo, tale sumpsit exordiwm: ‘Paulus apostolus, non
ab hominibus, neque per hominem’ Apostolus autem, hoc est, ‘missus,’
Hebraeorum proprie vocabulum est, quod Silas [v.1. Silat] quoque sonat, cut
a mittendo ‘misst’ nomen® impositum est.”
1 Cf. G. F. Moore, Judaism, vol. iii. note 5.
2 Silas (or Silai) is apparently a bad transliteration of the Hebrew mbur, or
the Aramaic mw with transposition of the vowels.
vI THE TWELVE AND THE APOSTLES 49
Eusebius, In Esaiam xviii. 1 (Migne, P.G. xxiv. 213), says’ AzoordéAovs Eusebius.
8e eirére Kal viv €Oos exriv lovdaiors ovopdew todbs éyxixdia ypdppara
Tapa TOV apxdvTwv adtav éeriKopt(opevors.
Epiphanius, Panarion xxx. 4, gives us fuller information, and shows Epiphanius.
that the apostoli were not merely collectors, but legates from the Patriarchs
with extensive powers. The story is too long to quote in full, but it is
worth reading. It concerns the adventures of one Joseph of Tiberias,
a Jew, who when an ‘Apostle’ of the Jewish Patriarch in the time of
Constantine had been a severe and unpopular disciplinarian. In the
course of his travels he made friends with a bishop who lent him a copy
of the Gospels. When the Jews discovered this they beat him and threw
him into the river. He then became a Christian, and was given the
rank of Comes by Constantine, with the privilege of building churches
in Galilee. Later on he was a vigorous opponent of the Arians, and—
according to his own account—when his wife died, married again, in
order to avoid ordination.
Joseph clearly made a great impression on Epiphanius, and his
statement about the apostolt is eiot dé obrou pera TOV mar pidpxnv dmdaToAot
Kaovpevor, mporedpevourr dé TO TaTpiépXy, Kal adv avT@ modAdKus
kat €v vuKTi Kal é€v nuépa ouvexas Sidyovor Sid 7d ovpBovdrcverv kal
dvapépewy adT@ TA KaTa TOV VOpov.
Thus in the fourth century the envoys of the Jewish Patriarch were
undoubtedly called daéaroAot. When and why did the custom begin of so
calling them? Griitz (Geschichte der Juden, ed. 1, iv. pp. 345 ff.) thought
that it began after the calamities of the third century, in the Patriarchate
of Gamaliel IV. or of Judah III. More recent scholars (Harnack,
Juster, and Monnier) think that it is far older, and goes back to the
fall of Jerusalem.*
Doubtless the institution of messengers is older than the fourth century,
and it would have been natural to call them mw. The question is
whether this word was translated into Greek as dmécroAos. For this
there is no evidence. All the testimony which we have is Christian,
and a Christian in the third century might naturally translate mw
dardéaToXos.
Still less is there evidence that similar envoys of the high priests The poll-tax.
were so called before 70. At that time there was an authorized poll-
tax on all Jews of two drachmae. The speech of Cicero Pro Flacco is the
classical evidence that in the first century, when there was a senatus
consultwm against the exportation of gold, an exception was noted in
favour of the Jews. This tax was not collected by representatives of the
high priests, but by delegates of the various settlements of the Diaspora.
The chief description of this tax and its dispatch to Jerusalem is Philo,
De spec. leg. i. 77 (Mang. ii. p. 224), Even if the aurwm coronartum be
taken as the legitimate successor of the ‘didrachma’ of the earlier period,
it is clear that it was collected in a different manner, and that the persons
1 It is even argued that it may be traced to the Persian period. See
‘Apostle’ in the Jewish Encyclopaedia, and F. Gavin’s ‘Shaliach and Apostolos’
in the Anglican Theological Review, January 1927.
VOL. V E
Antiochian
influence.
The wider
usage.
Paul.
50 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
‘sent’ with it came from the Diaspora, not from the high priests. Nor
is there any evidence of the use of the word dwécroAos. But it is
noteworthy that dréoroXos seems to be used in a somewhat similar sense
of Epaphroditus in Philipp. ii, 25.
' Thus there is no evidence that the word dréaroXos was borrowed
from Jewish sources. More probably it was the Greek-speaking church
of Antioch which hit on the idea of using the rare but natural word
dréotoAos. If the word be Antiochian in origin the facts are easily
explained. Paul—the earliest witness to its use—and. Luke are certainly
closely connected with Antioch, and the occasional and rare use of
the word in Mark, Matthew, and the Apocalypse is natural ; for even if
none of these documents came from Antioch, it was so influential a centre
of Christian propaganda that its vocabulary was sure to influence writers
from other places. It is indeed interesting how far all the earliest Greek
terminology may point to Antioch: Certainly there is a fair case for
the view that from Antioch came not only dréaroAos but also xipios,
éxxAnoia, and Xpwriavés. But drdoroAos, unlike xvpios, which is
important for its connotation in Greek religion, and éxxAnoia, which is
important for its connotation in Jewish religion, seems to have no history
and no wide connotation. Of all the technical terms of the New
Testament it is the most markedly and exclusively Christian.
Two usages can be distinguished. (i.) In the Pauline Epistles
améotoXos is used in the sense of a Christian missionary who has been
commissioned to the service of the gospel. Paul himself claimed that his
commission came from God and from Christ, but the form of expression
used in Gal. i. 1 etc. suggests that he knew of apostles whose commission was
from men. There is no implication that he regarded the Apostles as limited
in number to twelve, and that he thought that an apostle need have seen
the Lord is a rather rash conclusion? from 1 Cor, ix. 1. In the context of
this passage St. Paul has been discussing the question of things offered to
idols, and has said that he would rather never eat meat again than give
offence to weaker brethren ; he then goes on, “ Am I not free? am I not
an apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord? are not you my work in
the Lord? If I am no apostle for others, at least Iam to you ; for you are
in the Lord my seal of fellowship.” It is customary to regard this passage
as the answer to an attack on Paul’s apostolate: indirectly it may be
so, for the troubles in Corinth broke out soon afterwards; but directly
and principally it has to do with the question of things offered to idols.
It is a mistake to think that all the qualifications mentioned in ix. 1 ff.
are intended to prove that he was an apostle. The main point is the
argument that he, in spite of his privileges, prefers not to use them lest he
should give offence, and that the Corinthians ought in the same way to
consider the feelings of others in relation to things offered to idols. Only
incidentally does he put in a parenthesis defending his apostolate. If
1 This conclusion is due to reading into the Epistles the view found in
Acts x. 41, that an apostle was one who had been an eye-witness to the risen
Lord.
vi THE TWELVE AND THE APOSTLES 51
this be so, the three clauses, “Am I not free? am I not an apostle?
have I not seen Jesus our Lord ?” are three separate claims to distinction,
and it is an exaggeration to say that Paul only regarded as ‘apostles’
those who had seen Jesus.
There are also traces of this use of the word drécroXos in Acts. In In Acts.
xiv. 4 and 14 Barnabas and Paul are described as drécroAo, but it is
unnecessary to suppose, as is sometimes done, that this apostolate is
thought to begin with the commission described in xiii. 1. (See also note
on iv. 36.)
As was stated above, this view of the apostolate is probably also In the
preserved in the Didache, where dwécroXos seems to mean a Christian 2“
missionary and nothing more. This is often stated as though it were
certain, but to do so overlooks the fictitious nature of the Didache and
the fact that it is not intended by the writer to be a description of his own
time (a date more uncertain than most writings on the subject suggest*),
but a picture of the days when the disciples of Jesus were still alive. It
is therefore intrinsically just possible that in Didache xi. 3 ‘apostle’
means one of the original body of the Twelve. The reason for doubting
this is that, assuming, as we certainly ought, that the passage is intended
as a picture of the first century, the writer thinks not merely that the
Apostles may be unknown to those whom they visit, but even that they may
be capable of bad conduct. Could he have thought this if ‘apostle’ means
‘one of the Twelve’? It is therefore probable that the Didache really
continues the Pauline tradition and uses drdorodXos in a general sense,
not confining it to the Twelve. .
(ii.) Over against this extended view is a more contracted one which The
limits the Apostles to the Twelve. This is plain from a comparison of aie
Acts i. 2 ff, i 17, i. 25 f., ete. Even if it be not clear in every place
that ‘the Apostles’ means the Twelve, probably no one will doubt that
this is in the mind of the editor—as distinct from his sources—and that
such a verse as Acts xiv. 14 represents the different usage of a source
employed by the editor, not his own opinion. The limitation of ‘ apostle’
to the Twelve became general in the later Church, though Eusebius and
others admit that the Seventy of Luke had a claim to the title of apostle, and
explain the references to Barnabas and others as apostles by the hypothesis
that they belonged to the Seventy. (Cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. i. 12.)
These facts suggest that originally Jesus chose twelve representatives Conclusion.
who were naturally called ‘Shaliach’ and often referred to as ‘the
Twelve.’ Later on, perhaps before or perhaps after the Resurrection,
other disciples were recognized as ‘Shaliach’ and in Greek were called
‘Apostles,’ Still later this second stage was forgotten and the word
1 I have ventured to reprint this passage from The Earlier Epistles of
St. Paul, p. 229.
2 See especially J. A. Robinson, Barnabas, Hermas, and the Didache, which
shows very conclusively that it is—to say the least—extremely rash to date the
Didache in the first century. For myself, I think that the Didache in its present
form is later than Hermas.
Apostles as
witnesses,
As adminis-
trators.
Acts i.-v.
52 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
‘apostle’ was usually narrowed in meaning so as to be synonymous with
‘the Twelve.’
4, The Apostles in Acts
According to the opening verses of Acts Jesus had chosen the Apostles
during his ministry (in the Western text ‘to preach the gospel’), and in
his parting words before the Ascension commissioned them to be ‘his
witnesses’ throughout the world. This strikes one of the two primary
notes found in Acts as to the function of the Apostles.
First, they were witnesses who were able to say ‘what we have seen
with our eyes,’ and thus deliver authoritatively the ‘message about Jesus.’
The exercise of this function is illustrated in every speech of Peter in
Acts. Obviously the ability to give this witness was not necessarily
limited to the ‘Twelve,’ but equally clearly the meaning of the writer
is that only the Twelve received the commission, and probably that is
why Paul’s vision of the risen Jesus, and the commission which he
received, are so emphasized at the beginning of the Pauline section of
Acts.
Equally important for the historian is the second great function of
the Apostles—to govern and administer the Church. The Church at
the beginning consisted of 120 persons (Acts i. 15), who were waiting in
Jerusalem for the speedy coming of the End. But as the End was delayed
the problem of their common life became more and more important, and
to regulate it was the work of the Twelve, of whom Peter is generally
the leader and spokesman. The exact nature and limits of this work
are nowhere defined, but a reasonably clear picture of facts and of problems
can be formed by considering the following passages.
(i.) Acts i. 15 ff. At the first meeting of the ‘brethren’ in Jerusalem
after the Ascension Peter proposed that one of them should be elected to
take the place of the traitor Judas. The appointment was made by the
community, but on the motion of Peter, and it obviously implies that
being reckoned among the Twelve was a position of dignity and power.
The exact extent to which the making of the appointment was divided
between Peter and the community depends upon the text. According to
the Neutral text the community nominated two and then cast lots
between them : according to the Western text Peter nominated two and
the community either voted or cast lots between his two nominees.
Which is the right text? It does not seem to be a case of accidental
variation, and the Western text is remarkably like some forms of later
ecclesiastical elections. Did the Western text of Acts produce the
ecclesiastical organization, or did the ecclesiastical organization modify the
text? It is perhaps important to notice (a) that Peter and the Twelve
took this position of leadership before the day of Pentecost, and therefore
it was not due to the possession of the Spirit ; (0) that obviously the
Twelve did not exhaust the number of those who were eligible to serve
as ‘witnesses’ but had not been commissioned to serve by Jesus.
(ii.) Acts ii. 1 ff. On the day of Pentecost, whether it was they only
or the whole community which received the Spirit, it was in any case
vI THE TWELVE AND THE APOSTLES 53
Peter, acting as spokesman of the Twelve, who converted three thousand
of the crowd who were listening.
(iii.) Acts i. 41 ff, iv. 32 ff, vi. 1 ff. The Apostles appear in these
verses as the recipients and distributors of charity, until the responsibility
becomes more than they can manage without help. The result was that
the Seven were appointed. By whom? _ Is it an accident that once more
there are textual variants at the critical point? According to the Codex
Vaticanus Peter said, “It is not good for us to leave the word of God
to serve tables. Let us choose, brethren, seven men from among you. ...
But we ourselves will attend to prayer and the service of the Lord. And
the proposal was accepted by all the congregation (singular) and they
chose Stephen . . . and they stood them before the Apostles and they
prayed and laid hands on them.” The variation of ‘we’ and ‘you’ and
‘they’ is extraordinarily ambiguous. It clearly means that the Seven
were ordained by the Apostles. Does it mean that they were selected by
the Apostles or by the community? (See note ad loc.) The Western
text has no doubt about the matter and rewrites the passage to make it
clear that the Seven were selected by the congregation and ordained by
the Apostles. Once more, what is the relation between the history of the
text and the history of ecclesiastical institutions ?
In these three passages it is clear that the Apostles are the Twelve, Summary of
that Peter is their head, and that the government of the Church is in inical
their hands. There is no suggestion that they conferred the gift of the
Spirit ; all that Peter says is that if others repent and are baptized in
the name of Jesus Christ they will receive the same gift. It is quite
possible (see Vol. I. pp. 339 f.) that the reference to baptism is editorial ;
but in any case there is a remarkable absence of any reference to Apostolic
mediation as necessary for the gift of the Spirit.
(iv.) Acts viii. 5 ff. This is the story of Philip’s work in Samaria : Philip's
how he converted many by his preaching about ‘the Kingdom of God ¥°™
and the name of Jesus Christ,’ so that ‘they were baptized, both men
and women.’ The narrative continues: “ When the Apostles in Jerusalem
heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God they sent to them
Peter and John, who went down and prayed for them that they might
receive Holy Spirit. For it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they
had merely been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they
laid hands on them and they began to receive Holy Spirit.” It seems
clear from this passage that its writer believed that the Apostles and no
one else had the power of conferring the Holy Spirit, and that they did
so not by baptism but by the laying on of hands. Simon Magus, the
most prominent of Philip’s converts, perceived that the Apostles had the
power of conferring the Holy Spirit by the imposition of their hands and
tried to bribe them to give him the same power that they had. The
incident is very significant. Simon was not trying to purchase the gift
of the Spirit, which the Apostles had apparently already given, but the
1 It would also follow that the author did not think that the gift of the
Holy Spirit was necessary to salvation, for, if it had been, what would have been
the point of the conversion and baptism of the Samaritans by Philip ?
54 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
power to confer it. Obviously, according to the author of this section,
not everyone who had received the Spirit was able to impart it. It is to
be noted that the story does not state that Peter could not confer the gift
of imparting the Spirit, but only that he did not choose to do so in the
case of Simon Magus. It is a pity that we cannot say with certainty
whether this episode expounds the opinion of Luke, or of the source
which he was using. (See Vol. I. pp. 338 ff.)
This passage belongs to the same class as the preceding so far as the
identification of the Apostles with the Twelve is concerned, but it differs
by the great emphasis it puts on the necessity of Apostolic mediation in
addition to baptism for the gift of the Spirit.
Paul's con- (v.) Acts ix. 1 ff The story of Paul’s conversion is not so clear as
version might be wished, but it is obvious that the writer, like Paul himself,
regards the vision on the road to Damascus as Paul’s call to be an Apostle,
and ix. 27 is probably intended as the recognition by the Apostles that
Paul is one of their number.
Peter's (vi.) Acts x. 34 ff. Peter’s speech in Caesarea. This is important
epeech in because in verse 41 is the clearest explanation that the Apostles (jjuiv)
were the witnesses, chosen before of God, who ate and drank? with Jesus
after the Resurrection.
Antioch. (vii.) Acts xi. 19 ff. The foundations of the Church at Antioch, This
was the work of unknown followers of Stephen who had preached to
Gentiles at Antioch. Just as Peter and John were sent to Samaria
to investigate the work of Philip, Barnabas was sent to investigate the
state of affairs in Antioch. He approved of what had been done and
summoned Paul to help him. The interesting points in the narrative
for the present purpose are: (a) Barnabas was not one of the Twelve ; but
both here and elsewhere he is ranked as an Apostle. This is one of the
clearest examples of the wider meaning of ‘ Apostle’ making itself visible
(see above, p. 402). (6) Paul is definitely put into a position of sub-
ordination to Barnabas, and comes to help him in territory which was
not his own. Rom. xv. 20 is a curious commentary on this fact. Paul
says, “I have striven to preach the gospel where Christ was not named,
lest I should build on another man’s foundation.” Did he adopt this
policy because his co-operation with Barnabas had proved unsatisfactory ?
However this may be, it is clear that to the writer of Acts Barnabas’
mission to Antioch represents apostolic control over a church founded by
those who were not Apostles. Moreover, both here and in the story of ©
Philip it is implied that in some sense the Christians in Jerusalem
exercised an authoritative supervision over other communities.
The (viii.) Acts xv. 1 ff. Although the story of Paul’s journeys is
Apostolic reached in chap. xiii, the first important episode for the present purpose
1 For the details of this episode and the parallel narratives in xxii. 3 ff. and
xxvi. 9 ff. see Addit. Note 15.
2 Obviously Paul did not really belong in this category, but he was a witness,
the last (as he says himself), of the risen Lord. Does ‘eating and drinking’
belong to the original definition? Paul would surely not have accepted it, and
it is probably the anti-Docetic amplification of the editor of Acts.
vI THE TWELVE AND THE APOSTLES 55
is the meeting of the Church in Jerusalem, described in chap. xv., which
seems to read as though Paul and Barnabas recognized the authority of
that body. Once more the question of text enters into the problem.
The Neutral text is very obscure, but it is plain in the Western text
that representatives of the Church in Jerusalem came down to Antioch
and summoned Paul and Barnabas, those dangerous innovators, to go up
and answer for themselves before the Apostles. It is quite possible
that here the Western text has at least correctly interpreted Luke’s
meaning (see note ad loc.) In the event it is true that Peter sides with
Paul and Barnabas, and James the brother of the Lord sums up in their
favour. But it is clear that the tribunal was composed of the Apostles
and Elders, and Paul and Barnabas were to some extent on trial.
Who were the Elders, and what was the position of James is nowhere
definitely stated, but the position of James? is clear not only in Acts xv.,
but also in Galatians i. and ii. and in Acts xxi. He is the leader of the
Church in Jerusalem. Paul puts him before Peter and John (Gal. ii. 9),
and represents Peter’s backsliding in Antioch as due to the influence
of James’s representatives. In Acts he decides (¢yw xpivw, xv. 19) the
question discussed at the Council, and when Paul comes to Jerusalem
for the last time (xxi. 18) it is James who appears as the undoubted
head of the Christian community.
Was he an ‘ Apostle’? According to Paul he certainly was, for the
phrase in Gal, i. 19 (érepov 5¢ Tov droordAwy ovK eidov ei pi) "Idéxwfov)
can scarcely mean anything except that James was an Apostle. But he
was not one according to Acts, which normally regards ‘ Apostle’ as
synonymous with ‘the Twelve,’
K. Holl, in his brilliant Der Kirchenbegriff des Paulus,? has suggested kK. Holl.
that in 1 Cor, xv. 5 ff. may be found a solution of the difference between
the Epistles and Acts. Paul here says that the risen Lord appeared to
Peter, then to the Twelve, then to five hundred brethren, then to James,
and then to all the Apostles. Holl thinks that the implication is that
after he had seen the risen Lord James became an ‘ Apostle,’ so that ‘all
the Apostles’ means ‘the Twelve and James,’ and that it was by virtue
of his relationship to Jesus that he was recognized as the head of the
community. It is, however, obvious that this suggestive combination
reads into Paul’s words much more than is really stated. All that is
certain is that Paul differentiates between the Twelve and the Apostles.
He probably implies that James and the Twelve all belong to the larger
group of Apostles, but not that ‘the Twelve and James’ form the whole
of that larger group. Moreover, Holl’s theory scarcely does justice to the
description of Andronicus and Junias in Rom. xvi. 7 as érionpor év Tots
1 The relationship of James to Jesus has been so fully discussed in Ropes’
commentary on the Epistle of James, as well as in Lightfoot’s commentary on
Galatians, that it is unnecessary to deal with it here; and to consider the
tradition as to his death preserved in Hegesippus-Eusebius belongs rather to a
treatment of the Church in Jerusalem.
2 Gesammelte Aufsitee zur Kirchengeschichte, ii. pp. 44 ff. (reprinted from
the Sitzwngsberichte of the Berlin Academy for 1921).
The
Presbyters.
Paul in
Ephesus,
56 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
amrootoAous, Which most naturally implies that Andronicus and Junias
were distinguished members of the Apostolic class, not that they were
regarded as famous by the Apostles. But even if this be doubted it
cannot be denied that in 1 Cor. ix. 5 f. Paul includes Barnabas and the
Brethren of the Lord among the Apostles. He says: “ Have I no right
to take about a Christian wife like the other Apostles, the Brethren of
the Lord, and Kephas? Or have only Barnabas and myself no right to
give up work?” It is impossible to argue satisfactorily that the Brethren
of the Lord are regarded as a class separate from the Apostles without
admitting that Kephas also was not an Apostle, and to most minds this
is a reductio ad absurdum.
Therefore Holl’s theory, so far as it limits the meaning of ‘ Apostle’
to ‘the Twelve and James,’ is probably wrong; but it is certainly right
in emphasizing James’s position of primacy in Jerusalem and his rank as
an Apostle.
The ‘ Presbyters’ are a more difficult problem. The word obviously
corresponds to the zegenim of Judaism, a college of men who were at the
head of the community. In the church at Jerusalem who can these
have been except the Apostles? In the absence of evidence it is only
possible to guess, but it is an attractive hypothesis that as the function
of the Apostles in Jerusalem gradually changed there was a tendency to
call them the zegenim rather than the sheluchim, and this resulted in
their being called rpeoBirepor in Greek.
An alternative guess would be that the ‘Presbyters’ were what
remained of the ‘Seven.’ Ecclesiastical tradition, it is true, calls them
‘ Deacons,’ but Acts does not do so; it merely says that they had the
Siaxovia of administering charity. If, as may be the case, all the
original apostles except James left Jerusalem and became missionaries,
the ‘Seven’ would be the natural persons to be the zeqenim of the com-
munity. It is by no means improbable that the disturbance in the
Church described in chapter vi. produced a more complete reorganization
than Luke has thought fit to describe.
Moreover, it is not inconceivable that the Seven belonged to the circle
of the Apostles—as distinct from the Twelve—and that (as is suggested
above) mpeoPirepor merely indicates a tendency to describe the whole of
this circle by their function in the Church. James had obviously become
their president. Was he called the érioxoros? Possibly ; but there
is considerable force in the contention that originally érioKomos was
synonymous with zpeoPirepos. It would be going too far afield to
discuss this difficult point, but perhaps attention may be drawn to the
fact that the earliest suggestion that émrioKxomos was a Christian title is
found in Gal. ii. 4 where xatacxorjoat is apparently a deliberate play
of words on érurkorjoat, comparable to the use made in Philipp. iii, 2 ff.
of kararopy and wepitopuy,! and the context shows that Paul held that
in Jerusalem there was more than one of these xatéoKoro.-€ricKkorot.
(ix.) Acts xix. 1 ff. This is an important but disconcerting episode,
1 See Holl, op. cit.
vI THE TWELVE AND THE APOSTLES 57
which, if taken in its natural sense, seems to contradict the implications
of the story in chap. viii. Paul reached Ephesus from the East and
found a number of ‘disciples,’ that is, Christians. He asked whether
they had received the Spirit after their conversion (again implying that
not all Christians had the Spirit, cf. above, p. 53, note), and when he
found that they had not done so he inquired into the nature of the baptism
which they had received. If only the Apostles had the power to confer
the Holy Spirit, why is Paul surprised to find that the people in Ephesus
had not received it? Did he think at first, what we are not told, that it
was one of the Apostles who had baptized them? The implication of
the narrative is that it was Apollos, or some wholly anonymous mission-
ary, and the fact that it turned out to have been only ‘John’s baptism’ and
not a baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus makes it almost impossible
that it could have been done by one of the Apostles. But if so, we are
forced to consider the possibility that Paul did not consider the conferring
of the Spirit as the exclusive prerogative of the Apostles (see further for
the bearing of this on Baptism, Addit. Note 11).
(x.) Acts xx. 18 ff. In his speech to the rpeoPirepo.4 of Ephesus Paul’s
Paul says that the Holy Spirit has made them éréoxoros to ‘shepherd $pacen.”
the church of God.’ Presumably he had appointed them himself, and
this identification of his own actions with those of the Holy Spirit is
entirely in keeping with the formula adopted at the council of Jerusalem
(‘it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us’) which has since served
as the model of correct ecclesiastical idiom. It is unfortunate that the
story gives no hint as to the theory of succession which is involved, or
the exact function of a rpeoPirepos-erioKoros, but it is clearly leading
up by inevitable sequence to the famous utterance of the Church of Rome
in the first epistle of Clement, written probably only a few years later
than Acts, which still remains a perfect commentary on the theory of
ecclesiastical government implied in Acts: ‘* The Christ therefore is from
God and the Apostles from the Christ ... they went forth filled with
the Holy Spirit, preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God was
about to come. They preached from district to district and from city to
city, and appointed their first converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be
érioxorot and dudkovor of the future believers. . .. Our Apostles also
knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife for the
name of the éricxo77. For this cause therefore, since they had received
perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been
mentioned, and afterwards added the codicil that if they should fall asleep
other approved men should succeed to their ministry.”* An apostolic
1 IT have used the Greek for éricxoros, rpecBirepos, and didxovos to avoid the
necessity of choosing a rendering which must inevitably assume an answer to
one of the difficult questions—are these words descriptive of functions or the
titles of offices ?
2 1 Clement xlii. 2-4 and xliv. 1-2. It should be noted that in the next
paragraph Clement refers to these éricxoro: and didxovos as mpecBirepo. If
these words were technical the vocabulary to which they belong was still
somewhat fluid. ;
Paul and
James in
Jerusalem.
Summary.
Spiritual
and local
rank,
58 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
ministry, sanctioned by the Holy Spirit, is almost as clearly the back-
ground of Acts as it is of Clement. The only difference, due to the
single generation or less which intervenes between Luke and Clement,
is that Acts emphasizes the divine prerogative of the Apostles, Clement
of their successors,
(xi.) Acts xxi. 18 ff. The last episode in Acts which throws any
light on the Apostles and the organization of the Church is Paul’s return
to Jerusalem in chap. xxi. The remarkable thing about the Apostles in
this story is their absence. Paul is met by James and the rpeoPBirepor :
there is no mention of any Apostle in Jerusalem. Had they all gone to
the mission field, or is it merely that Luke is using another name to
describe them, partly because the custom—either in fact or in his
source—had changed, partly because he was influenced by his theory
that ‘the Apostles’ means ‘the Twelve’ ?
It is obvious that in these passages we have a series of glimpses into
a complex of changing circumstances and rapidly developing terminology ;
but in any attempt to trace the course of this evolution the one thing
certain is that certainty cannot be attained. The. following seems the
most probable summary. The Twelve were appointed by Jesus in the
way described in the gospel of Mark. At least some of the Twelve
came to Jerusalem after the death of Jesus and preached that he was
the Messiah, risen from the dead and destined to come again on the
clouds of Heaven. They became leaders in the Church in Jerusalem,
but in view of the evidence of the Pauline Epistles it seems probable |
that the Twelve were not a closed corporation governing the Church, as
Luke (or the source which he uses in chapters i.-v.) would suggest, but
that the chief position was held by a wider circle known as the Apostles.
They were so called because they had been sent by Jesus, but in relation
to the rapidly growing Christian community in Jerusalem they fulfilled
the function of the Elders in the Jewish Council. It is therefore not
strange if those of them who stayed in Jerusalem came to be called
Elders rather than Apostles. At the beginning Peter was the chief of
the Apostles in Jerusalem, but when he became more and more a
travelling missionary his place was taken by James the brother of the
Lord, so that in A.D. 45 (the approximate date of the Apostolic Council)
James was the head of the Church in Jerusalem in spite of Peter's
presence, and he is given the first place not only in Acts but also in the
Epistle to the Galatians. How Peter’s original supremacy, testified to
not only by Acts i-v. but also by Gal. i. 18, passed into the hands of
James is, and will remain, an insoluble problem, because Luke has told
us nothing about it.
A further problem, which it is easier to state than to solve, is the
relation of the spiritual supremacy of the Apostles to that of the local
churches, There is much to be said for Holl’s view that at the beginning
Jerusalem claimed a certain power over all the other churches, and that
Paul, for the moment at least, succeeded in asserting the supremacy of
spiritual rank over the authority of any local centre, Whatever doubts
vil THE HELLENISTS 59
may be entertained about the authenticity of the later epistles of Paul,
it is certain that their emphasis on the Church as distinct from the
churches is a natural and legitimate evolution of Pauline thought. The
fall of Jerusalem and the influence of Paul combined to render the
position of James of secondary importance in the history of the Church,
and in ecclesiastical tradition it is Peter and Paul, the two great mis-
sionaries, not James, who are the chief of the Apostles. If in course
of time Rome and Constantinople developed what seem to us local pre-
tensions, more akin to the claims of James than of Paul, this was only
because both the old Rome and the new Rome claimed to be more than
‘localities ’—they were ‘the common superior of nations,’
Note VII. Tor HELLENISTS
By Henry J. CapBURY
The word Hellenist, like its derivatives or cognates, Hellenistic and The word
Hellenism, is so familiar and well established that no question seems Hellenist.
necessary about it. Nevertheless‘ EAAnvir77s is not a common word in the
Greek of the age that we call Hellenistic, and its first occurrences do not
testify without ambiguity to the generally accepted definition: ‘‘ A Hellenist
is a Greek-speaking foreigner, specifically a Greek-speaking Jew.”
In post-Nicene times the word is used of heathen or pagans, in contrast In post-
mainly with Christians.! The passages listed by Sophocles in his Lexicon are Nicpn’.
Julian, ed. Spanheim 430 p (= Letter 49, derived not from the mss. of Julian.
Julian but from Sozomen, H.H#. v. 16; cf. Migne, P.G. xvii. 1264 B)
didacke Sé kal cvverpéperv Tors ‘HAAnVioTas eis TAS TOLAtTas AecToUpyias
(ie. such charitable support as the Jews and Galileans practise) ;
Philostorgius, Migne, P.G. xv. 587 B eis appyta te Kat adijyynta a87 Philo-
karéornce [sc. lovAvavds] rovs Xpurriavovs, ravraxod Tov “EAAnviardy Storeius:
mdgas aikias Kai kawvas Bacdvous Kal muxpotdatous Oavarous éraydovTwv
adtois ; ibid. 541 a tov‘ EAAnuotov 74 aroretata Kata TOV Xpwrtiavov
TavTaXov Tadapwpevwv ktArA.; Sozomen, H.E. iii. 17 (Migne, P.G. Ixvii. Sozomen.
1093 B) %) Apnoea (i.e. Christianity) . . . €Ojpa Kati rpds éavTiv peTHye
ths “EAAnvixns tepOpeias tots “EXAnuotds; ibid. vii. 15 (1456 a)
Aeyerar S€ tov epi TotTwv ypadévtwv Tapa Baorréws eis TO Kowvdv
dvayvorbevrwv peya dvaBonra: Xpurtiavorts, cadre evOds ex rpoowpiwv
év aitia tovs “EAAnvotas éroveito. But before Julian, Philostorgius,
and Sozomen, who use it thus of pagans or champions of Hellenic culture,
I know of no instance of the word outside of the Book of Acts and
1 In the same era a still commoner term for pagan and heathen was
E\Anves. See A. D. Nock, Sallustius concerning the Gods, 1926, p. xlvii. note 43.
To his examples many more could be added, including some in the very con-
text of the instances of ‘EAAnnorai quoted here. The use of this word by
Christians goes back to Jewish usage and perhaps ultimately to the anti-
Hellenic prejudice of the Maccabean struggle.
Etymology.
Acts vi. 1.
60 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
passages dependent on it. So-called Hellenists like Philo of Alexandria,
Paul of Tarsus, and Josephus do not use it. We may therefore con-
fine ourselves to a study of the two or three passages in Acts, trying to
arrive at the meaning of “‘EAAnvior7s from its use in these passages, their
context, their early translation and interpretation, as well as—or even,
rather than—from the etymology of the word.
The word does not come from “EXAnv- directly by adding -urr7js but
is rather to be derived from the verb“EAAnvifw by the addition of the usual
termination for the nomen actoris, -rns. Verbs in -i¢w based on racial or
national names mean to ape the manners of, to be an enthusiast for the
cause or culture of, like Ileprifw, Mydifw, 2vxeAifw. But I do not find that
they always form nouns in -vorys. We have of course ’Atrixifw and
*Artixuotys.2 We have also nouns in -wr7s without corresponding verbs
in -i¢w, but of similar meaning to our endings-phile- man, iac in Anglophile
and Anglomaniac. Etymologically ‘EAA7nvicr7s should therefore mean, like
“EAAnvifw, anyone who practises Greek ways—whether a Greek himself or
a foreigner.* That such endings are not always causative is quite evident
from their usage. Nor are they limited to outsiders. Finally we should
observe that they have no special reference to language. The adverbial
ending -.oré does refer to language, e.g. “EAAnviori, ‘in Greek,’ but it is
independent of -vr77s, though of course popular etymology might come to
connect the two. With this brief etymological preface we may now turn
to the New Testament instances of “EAAnvurris.
The facts about these instances are familiar to students of Acts. The
first is in vi. 1: év b€ Tais 7pepats Tavras tn Ovvovrwv Tov pabntov
eyevero yoyyvapos TOV ‘EXAnvicrav mos TOUS “EBpaiovs, é OTe TapeDew-
potvrTo év TH Suaxovig TH KaOnpepivy at xjpar adrov.
This passage is the foundation of the belief that the word Hellenist
means a Greek-speaking Jew. The scene is the early church in Jerusalem.
Both parties are of course Christians. The author does not say this, but it is
obvious from the context. Further, both are commonly regarded as also
Jewish ; but the author does not say this, and it is not so evident from the
context. The word ‘Efpaio. used here only in Acts is thought to mean
‘ Semitic-speaking Jews,’ and “EAAnvwrai therefore ‘ Greek-speaking
Jews.’ While the inclusive word for Jews is Iovdaior, used elsewhere in
contrast with Gentiles who may be called “EAAnves as well as €Ovn, this
passage seems to divide the lovdaiot into two linguistic subdivisions :
‘ Hebrews,’ who spoke Aramaic, and ‘Grecians,’ as the A.V. translated
1 A Jewish schismatic sect is called by Justin, Dial. 80. 4, “EXAnvavoi, a
unique word. The ending is not irregular, however. Cf. Christian, etc., and see
p- 130. In the same passage are named other sects in -cor7js, yerioral, weporai.
2 "Iovdaiorjs, Judaizer, from "Iovdaitw (Paul, Josephus, LXX), occurs in
Adamantius 17848. Of course the participle of the verb took the place of the
noun as "Iwdvyys 6 Barriftwy alternates in Mark with “Iwdvyns 6 Bamrioris.
The forms in -icués also often occur more frequently than those in -.or7s.
Cf. ‘Iovéacoués in 2 Macc., Paul, Ignatius, and ‘E\Anvicpuds in 2 Macc.
3 For the proper etymological use of ‘E\Ayvoral see Zahn, Introduction to
the New Testament, § 2. note 21.
vil THE HELLENISTS 61
‘EAAnviortai, who spoke Greek. Such at least has been the universal
explanation.
There is at first sight much to commend this interpretation. (i.) The Luke and
author of Acts is elsewhere sensitive to the matter of language.t At the *"8"*5*
beginning of the book his narrative of Pentecost is a striking instance ; he
emphasizes the fact that Paul did not catch the Lycaonian vernacular of
his sudden admirers at Lystra ? (xiv. 11), that he was not to be confused
with an Egyptian who could not speak in Greek (EAAnvicri xxi. 37) to
the military tribune Claudius Lysias, that at Jerusalem he spoke to the
mob at the castle of Antonia t7 “EPBpaids diadéxrw (ie. in Aramaic
xxii. 2), and that even the same language explains the Semitic form
‘Saoul’ by which the divine voice called him at his conversion near
Damascus (xxvi. 14). The writer also omits, or translates into Greek,
the Roman or Semitic words that appear in his sources, or else apologizes
for the foreign word if he retains it.2 It would be natural that such
a historian should realize the existence of two linguistic groups in
Jewry and the early emergence of a Greek-speaking Christianity even
in Jerusalem.
(ii.) Furthermore, the position of the passage in Acts is usually thought The exegesis
to forbid the view that these converts to the gospel were purely Gentile. 04°°
It is thought that the innovation of taking Gentiles into the church would
be marked more explicitly, as it is later at Caesarea and Antioch. The
complaining party were Jews—Jews of the diaspora, who, though they
were not few in Jerusalem and in the church of Jerusalem, were over-
shadowed by the Palestinian party to which the Twelve as Galileans
naturally belonged. The committee of Seven chosen, as the sequel tells us,
to remedy the difficulty all bear Greek names. One of them is called
a proselyte of Antioch ; another is at once involved in fatal controversy
with Jews of the Synagogue of the Libertines. It is natural to suppose that
all the Seven were ‘ Hellenists’ and that Stephen’s opponents were of the
same class.
1 Tt should be observed, however, that in none of its three occurrences does
the context of ‘EAAnvioral suggest any difference or difficulty of language.
2 The present editors have increasingly come to suspect that elsewhere in
Acts geographical names like Lycaonia (xiv. 6, cf. 11) and the much discussed
Ppvyia and Tadarixh xwpa indicate linguistic rather than political areas.
Surely the traveller more readily observes the frontiers of language than those
of race or government. For the perseverance of local languages in Asia Minor
see Additional Note 18.
3 See my Style and Literary Method of Luke, pp. 154 ff. In the evidence for
Luke’s interest in languages we can scarcely include the words about the in-
scription on the cross in Luke xxiii. 38 ypdupaocw éddnvikols (kal) pwyarkors (Kal)
éBpacxoits. They are omitted by a few good and ancient textual authorities and
are under suspicion of being a harmonizing scribal addition based on John
xix. 20. And it is Matthew xxvi. 73 who changes the taunt to Peter in Mark
xiv. 70 from TadcAaios ef to 7 Aadid cov SHAdv ce Toe?. One may doubt,
however, whether \adi¢, means ‘the Galilean accent,’ as Zahn, Introd. to N.T7'.
§ 1 note 13, and others have held. Cf. John viii. 43.
Objections.
The names
of the Seven.
Historical
difficulties.
The use of
“EBpator.
62 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY _ nors
Nevertheless to this common understanding of the passage and of the
term Hellenist some weighty objections can be raised.
(i.) The Greek names of the Seven do not limit the bearers to Jews of
the diaspora. They could have been borne, on the one hand by Palestinian
Jews,! who must often have been partly bilingual,? or on the other hand
by non-Jews.
(ii.) It is not clear how the choice of seven members of one party would
satisfactorily provide for the poor widows of both parties, nor why men
chosen to allow the Twelve to preach rather than to ‘serve tables’ appear
later only as preachers and evangelists. The connexion beween the
choice of the Seven and the controversy of Stephen is not close, and it is
not stated that the foreigners at the synagogue of the Libertini should be
called Hellenists. The loose connexions of an obscure passage are pressed
too hard when all these deductions are drawn from them.*
(iii.) The word “EGpaio. is not commonly used elsewhere in a strictly
linguistic sense. It means ‘ Jewish,’ and when contrasted, as it often is,
with Gentiles it may, of course, include a difference of language. I know
no evidence of its use to describe a part or subdivision of Judaism. Paul
calls himself ‘a Hebrew’ (2 Cor. xi. 22) or a Hebrew from Hebrews (‘iBpaios
e€‘EBpaiwv Phil. iii. 5), and the fact that he also calls himself in one passage
an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, and in the other of the stock of Israel,
has been forcibly explained in the light of the passage in Acts as implying
that he was giving a narrower and linguistic description of his Jewish pre-
rogatives by emphasizing that he and even his ancestors were not really of
the Greek-speaking type so often found in the Dispersion, but were brought
up in the Semitic speech of the Palestinian Jews and primitive Christians.*
1 See notes on Acts i. 23 and vi. 5.
2 J. Weiss, Urchristentum, pp. 119 f., believes that not only Galilee but a large
part of Jerusalem also was bilingual in New Testament times. On Galilee see
G. Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, Eng. Trans., 1929, pp. 5 f.
3 The assumptions are illustrated in W. L. Knox, St. Paul and the Church
of Jerusalem. Those who accept the theory of.‘ panel markers’ (see Addit.
Note 31 and Vol. II. p. 176) may be reminded that one of them occurs at vi. 7
dividing the choice of the Seven from the dispute of Stephen.
4 A somewhat different suggestion is that ‘ESpato is geographical, of Jews
- born in Palestine. This may possibly be implied by Jerome, Commentary
on Philemon, vs. 23, where Paul’s birth at Gischala rather than at Tarsus is
brought into connexion with his claim to be'ESpaios. One can see that birth
in Palestine might be a less unintelligible ground for boasting than the ability
to use Aramaic. The tribe of Benjamin apparently claimed as a reason for
prestige that their ancestor alone among the twelve patriarchs was born in
Palestine. Jews of the dispersion, whether at Rome,. Corinth, Tarsus, or even
at Jerusalem, might distinguish from members of the older dispersion the more
recent Jewish emigrants from Palestine, including those whose exile dated from
the Roman conquests of Pompey (cf. note on Acts xxii. 28), or of Vespasian.
This view of a difference between Aramaic- and Greek-speaking Jews within the
dispersion is now espoused by Deissmann in a note in Nik. Miiller’s posthumous
work, Die Inschriften der jiidischen Katakombe am Monteverde zu Rom, 1919,
vit } THE HELLENISTS
But in the light of its general currency this special meaning for ‘E@patox
is improbable and less likely than one more nearly synonymous with Jew
or Israelite.
Outside the New Testament there is little evidence of “E@paios meaning
a Jew speaking “EGpaiori.! Philo uses it of Hebrew proper names in
contrast to their Greek interpretation. Josephus uses it of the Jews in
general, and so do many Gentile writers of his time.* The name occurs in
p. 24; in Licht vom Osten‘, 1923, pp. 12f. note (Eng. Trans.?, 1927, p. 16 note);
Paulus*, 1925, p. 71 note 7 (Eng. Trans.?, 1926, p. 90 note 5). Contrast his
earlier editions, German and English, of these works.
1 This adverb, like ‘Ed\nviori and others in -iorl, is linguistic. The word
does not usually distinguish Aramaic from Hebrew, but we may assume it
always means Aramaic in New Testament times. The argument of the present
note is not concerned to distinguish the earlier from the later Semitic speech of
the Jews, but is directed against the inference that the word is used of either
Semitic language as the distinguishing mark of a part of the Jewish or Jewish-
Christian community.
2 The instances of ‘Efpaios, as listed by Leisegang, Index Philonis, mostly
refer to the Hebrews in the time of Moses as contrasted with the Egyptians
or other peoples. Moses’ own name is described as Egyptian rather than
according to the language of the Hebrews. In giving other proper names
from the Old Testament, Philo contrasts their LXX spelling as the way in
which the ‘E8pato. name them with the Greek force of the original meaning.
Once (De confus. ling. 26, § 129, M. p. 424) he substitutes for his usual ‘ES8pato
- - + “E\Anves the contrast ‘ESpaio . . . queits. This seems at first sight to
confirm the view that ‘ESpaio in Philo are contrasted with Jews who speak
Greek. I think rather Philo identifies himself with all modern speakers in
Greek, and by ‘Efpaio. means the Old Testament Hebrews. It is after all
ancient Hebrew, not Aramaic, to which Philo is referring. The translators of
the Septuagint under Ptolemy Philopator he describes as ‘E8pato. who in
addition to their own culture are educated with the Hellenic ra:deia ‘EXAqvixy
(De vita Mosis, ii. 6, § 32, M. p. 139). Cf. Chrysostom quoted below, p. 424,
who says of the Hellenists of Acts, “EXAnvicrl épbéyyorro ‘EBpaia dvtes. Philo
himself was thoroughly Greek in language. Yet Eusebius, H.Z. ii. 4. 2, calls
him ‘Efpaios, and Photius seems to contrast him with the Hellenists when he
says, Bibl. Cod. 105, that his power of discourse inspired ro?s ‘EXAnviorais with
admiration. Photius is here following the Greek translation of Jerome, De
vir. ill. xi. which reads apud Graecos. Suidas in the parallel reads rap’ “EXAyou,
the so-called Sophronius rév ‘E\Anvixdv (see Texte und Untersuchungen xiv.
16, 14 ff.). But for these writers ‘E8patos meant Jews in general and ‘E\Aqnoral
Gentiles. For Christian uses of ‘ES8paios as possibly linguistic see Acta Philippi
116 (ed. Bonnet, p. 47), éya “E8paia eiui, Ovydrnp ‘EBpalwy. AddAnoov wer’ éuod
év TH Siadéxty T&v watépwr wov. Cf. Acta Thomae 8.
® Interesting, though of uncertain date and origin, is the adjuration of the
Great Magical Papyrus of Paris (line 3019), which begins dpxi{w ce xara Tod be0d
tav ‘EBpalwy ’Incod. On the use of ‘E8paia and ’Iovdato by Greek and Roman
writers see Juster, Les Juifs dans l’Empire romain, i. 173 note.
Mr. Nock has called to my attention a passage—the only one known to me
that uses together, as does Acts vi. 1, ‘E8paio: and ‘EAAnviocral—in the Testament
64 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
inscriptions of the early imperial period describing ‘ synagogues of Hebrews’
—at Corinth, and at Rome,” and at Philadelphia in Lydia *—but there is
no reason to suppose that we have in these names references to separate
language-groups or that the synagogue in Jerusalem mentioned a little
later in Acts vi., called ‘“‘of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians and of the
Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and Asia,” * would be called a syna-
gogue of the Hellenists and not a synagogue of Hebrews. There are other
instances of the word in the Jewish catacombs in Rome.®
of Solomon, vi. 8 (p. 27* McCown): xade?ra: 5é rap’ ‘EBpators Marixh, 6 ad’ bous
KaredOdv? ore 5¢ TSv ‘EAAnriorGv ’Eupavouhdr, of Sédocxa rpéuwrv. But this is
the reading only of recension A; two other recensions read mapa dé "EdAnvas
or “EAAqow.
1 [owa]ywyh ‘EBplaiwy]. See Deissmann, Licht vom Osten‘, pp. 12 f.
(second English translation, p. 16); Corinth, vol. viii. part i. ‘Greek In-
scriptions,’ ed. by Benj. D. Meritt, pp. 78 f. On Jews in Corinth see the
article by F. J. M. de Waele, Studia Catholica, iv., 1928, pp. 163 ff. For the
opposite view see most recently the long argument of Zahn on Acts xviii. 4,
Kommentar zum N.T. vol. v. pp. 638-646, ‘ “ESpaioi.—Tovdaion,’ and the note
of Windisch on 2 Cor. xi. 22 (Meyer, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar iiber das
Neue Testament, vol. vi., 9th ed., 1924, pp. 350 f.).
2 CIG. 9909 Larw[un] Ovyarnp Tadia rarpos cvvaywyns AtBpewv. Cf. Schiirer,
Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom, 1879, p. 35; GJV.*‘ iii. p. 83; Juster,
Les Juifs dans ?V Empire romain, i. 415, note f.
3 7p ay.o7[ary oluvaywyh Tv ‘EBpatwy. Keil and von Premerstein, ‘ Bericht
iiber eine dritte Reise in Lydien,’ Denkschriften der Akademie der Wissen-
schaften in Wien, lvii., 1914, pp. 32 ff., No. 42.
4 Possibly more than one synagogue is intended, see note ad loc.
5 See N. Miller, Die jiidische Katakombe am Monteverde zu Rom, 1912,
pp. 104 f., 109 f.; Kaibel, Inscr. Graecae Ital. et Sicil. 945 warpds rv ‘EBpéwv
Tadia (in Portus); N. Miller and N. Bees, Die Inschriften der jiid. Katakombe
am Monteverde zu Rom, 1919, Nos. 50, 109, 110, 111, 118, and see Index, s.v.
“EBpatos. The word is used of individual Jews, including one known to be a
Palestinian Jew (No. 118 Maxedévis 6 AiBpeos Keoapeds rs IlaXeorivys). In
this early cemetery one of the few inscriptions to use Semitic translation is
to the daughter dpx(ovros) ‘EBpéwy (No. 50, 2nd to 3rd cent. a.D.). The
Semitic is Aramaic, not Hebrew. The fact that another synagogue Bepva-
kA\nolwv or Bepvaxdépw or Bepydxdwy is mentioned (Nos. 109, 110, 111) might
seem to imply a language classification, but the word Vernaculi, Vernaclenses
doubtless means Jewish imperial slaves born in the household, and is to be
compared rather with the other Roman synagogue titles Augustenses, and
perhaps with the Synagogue of the Libertines in Acts vi. 9, and Caesar’s
household in Phil. iv. 22. The synagogue groups need not be expected all to
follow the same basis of nomenclature any more than do modern churches.
G. La Piana, ‘Foreign Groups in Rome,’ in The Harvard Theological Review,
xx., 1927, p. 356, note 26, after discussing other theories proposes that the
synagogue ‘of the Hebrews’ was the oldest of all, and when newer ones were
added it kept the name, and perhaps certain conservative customs and ancient
pride. It is obvious how uncertain the real force of ‘E8paios is both in the
New Testament and on the inscriptions.
vial THE HELLENISTS 65
‘Hebrews’ as used in the O.T.,1 Apocrypha, and New Testament implies
a contrast of Jews with foreigners. It is not the word used of the Hebrews
speaking of themselves to others of their nation, but often is specially
employed when a Jew is represented as speaking to a foreigner or being
spoken of by foreigners. Similarly in Acts vi. ‘ Hebrews’ would seem to
mean simply Jews spoken of from a Jewish standpoint and with a view to
contrast, and ‘ Hellenists’ would mean those who were not Jews at all but
outsiders, Gentiles (as at its later occurrences), or, in other words, it is a
synonym of ¢0vy or “EAAnves.
But, it will be objected, would the author of Acts introduce a Actsand the
reference to Gentile Christians so early in his story and so casually ? He Ohetationtty.
pays so much attention to Cornelius the centurion a few chapters later,
and seems so clearly to imply that his case was an innovation (xv. 14),
that it is usually assumed that he regards it as the great turning-point in
the missionary history of the Church. My own impression is that the
author of Acts, for all his attention to lines of development—an attention
not expected in an ancient writer as it is in the days influenced by the
evolutionary understanding of history—has nevertheless not attempted
to portray a consistent picture of an originally Jewish and Judean Christi-
anity systematically expanding to other lands and groups by definite
intervening steps, but rather to emphasize the acceptance of the Gospel
by non-Jews as a repeated phenomenon, which gradually broke down all
opposition, not as one event which had one single beginning. It was the
divine plan from the beginning, though its clear understanding came later
and gradually. The preaching of Paul of course shows this process in city
after city. ‘‘ Lo, we turn to the Gentiles, . . . the Gentiles will also hear,”
are Paul’s first and last words in Acts from Pisidian Antioch to Rome.
1 The title to the Epistle to the Hebrews is rps ‘Efpaiouvs. This is prob-
ably not original, and the intention of those who used it is not clear. See
J. Moffatt, ‘Hebrews,’ in International Critical Commentary, p. xv. It may
have been a deduction from the apparent polemic against Judaism in the
letter. Or it may be an inference made after the letter was attributed to
Paul that since his other letters were addressed to Gentiles this different letter
was addressed to Jews. In either case it implies nothing as to the Semitic
language of the readers. If, however, the title came in still later when the
difference of style between this and the other Pauline letters was urged by
some against Pauline authorship, and was explained by others as due to the
fact of translation into Greek (by Luke) from another language, then the
E8pato. may be supposed to mean Aramaic-speaking Jews. An allegorical use
of the name is claimed by F. M. Schiele in his article on the Epistle to the
Hebrews in the American Journal of Theology, ix. (1905), pp. 290 ff. Compare
also the Gospel according to the Hebrews as a title. It is said to have been
written in Aramaic.
2 Both ‘ESpato and Icpay\ occur appropriately distributed in Judith. The
author of Acts shows in other cases a like regard for the different terms suitable
for different speakers or situations, e.g. €0vos vs. \ads. See Addit. Note 32 and
The Making of Luke-Acts, p. 228.
VOL. V F
Acts xiii. f.
Antioch.
Cornelius,
Philip
and the
Ethiopian.
66 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
But even earlier in the book emphasis is laid on the successive and, one
might almost say, repeated beginnings of Gentile Christianity. This
can be seen most clearly by reviewing some passages in reverse order.
(a) The missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas (xiii., xiv.) is
regarded as an innovation in spite of the episode of Cornelius. Its scale
and scope were of course impressive, but it is reported to various
audiences as the opening of a door of faith to the Gentiles (xiv. 27;
xv. 3, 4, 12).4
(6) A little earlier at Antioch (xi. 19, 20), in spite of textual problems, the
sense requires that while at first others preached the Gospel exclusively to
the Jews, it was ultimately preached to non-Jews by certain men of Cyprus
and Cyrene. But it is not explicitly said that Gentiles were first converted
at Antioch, though the name ‘Christian’ was used there for the first
time. The whole movement received the endorsement of Barnabas as a
representative of the Church of Jerusalem, just as Philip’s work in Samaria
was investigated and completed by Peter and John. But I believe that
the innovation both in Samaria and at Antioch was regarded as geo-
graphical rather than racial, as in the plan outlined in Acts i. 8: “ both
in Jerusalem and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost
part of the earth.”
(c) The story of Cornelius (x. 1-xi. 18) precedes that of Antioch. The
visions, the repetitions, etc., indicate how important it was considered. It
is later recalled as a precedent (xv. 7). It was a notable instance of Gentile
conversion, and it raised questions of divine authentication, of apostolic
approval, and of the intercourse between Jewish and Gentile converts which
find their echoes and their parallels elsewhere.
(d) Still earlier in Acts comes Philip’s conversion of the eunuch,
treasurer to the Ethiopian queen (viii. 26-40). The author’s interest in
him is partly, of course, his high rank, but he is certainly a representative
of ‘ the ends of the earth.’ Nothing is said as to whether he was a Jew or
Gentile. That he was at least a proselyte is suggested by the two facts that
he had come to Jerusalem to worship and that he was reading the Book
of Isaiah. Whether in point of fact a eunuch could have become a
proselyte or been admitted to the service of the Temple is a query which
probably did not interest Luke.? Probably he could have done both. But,
on the other hand, Greeks who were not necessarily converts to Judaism
1 The reports to Jerusalem follow also the episode of Cornelius (xi. 1-3, 18),
and recur as late in the book as xxi. 19f. . These passages, like the ‘monotonous’
turning to the Gentiles, show that the author did not regard the conversion of
Gentiles as a single new departure.
2 Strack’s Kommentar fails us at this point. Professor G. F. Moore has
kindly replied to an inquiry as follows: ‘‘The question turns upon the inter-
pretation of the phrase ‘the congregation of the Lord’ in Deut. xxiii. 2 (E.V.
xxiii. 1). The Jewish interpretation of these words in that and the following
verses (3-9) is that the classes of persons thus denied admission to the
congregation may not marry a Jewish woman of pure race. It is so in
the codes: Maimonides, Issuré Bi’ah 16, 1 ff.; Caro, Shulhan ‘Aruk, Eben
ha-‘Ezer 5, 1 ff.; in the Talmud in various places, e.g. Yebamot 76 b. The
vil THE HELLENISTS 67
went up to the temple to worship (John xii. 20 joav de"EAAnvés Teves €x
Tov avaBawovTwv iva tporKuvyTwo €v TH €opT7), and there was a court
of the Gentiles to which they were admitted... The eunuch may have
been offering gifts on behalf of his queen. Such Gentile presents were not
unusual at the temple. And that Gentiles read the Jewish scriptures
in Greek is not improbable.? It is therefore possible that Luke regarded
the eunuch as a Gentile, and ranked him as a notable convert from
heathenism.*
(e) Last in the list is the story of Pentecost (ii. 1-42). It is for the Pentecost.
author an epoch-making event, as his emphasis on it shows. With the
usually accepted text in ii. 5 (jjoav dé év “lepoveadArp Katotkovvres
*lovdaior, dvdpes evAaBeis dd wavtds eOvovs Tov bird Tov ovpavdr) the
audience is all Jews, and the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, etc., must be
Jewish mediaeval commentators on Deut. (Rashi, Ibn Ezra) give the same
interpretation, which is found also in the Jerusalem Targum. It goes as
far back as we can trace the interpretation at all, namely, to Sifré on Deut.
xxiii. 2 (cf. Midrash Tannaim, ed. Hoffmann, p. 144), that is to the juristic
authorities of the middle of our second century or earlier, who state it as an
unquestioned tradition. There is no reason to think that it was otherwise
understood before the destruction of the temple.
“« Kahal is for them not the whole ‘ congregation of Israel,’ as it is probably
meant in the law, but is used of each one of four or five distinct classes, who
worshipped together in the temple and synagogue, but in matters of marriage
and succession are subject to different rules (Sifré Deut. 247, Judah ben Ila‘i)
—-priests, levites, (lay) Israelites, proselytes. Some counted only three, others
five (Kiddushin 72b-73a).
‘There is on the part of the Rabbis no suspicion that Jews of illegitimate
birth (n-1np) or proselytes from the different peoples named in the following
verses were excluded from the temple worship; it is solely a question of when,
if ever, their descendants may marry Israelites pur sang.” Cf. D. Hoffmann,
Das Buch Deuteronomium, part ii. ad loc. The point is not what the original
intention of the law in Deuteronomy was, but how it was understood and
. applied in the times in which the story is laid. About that there can be no
doubt. Not only the passage in Acts but Wisd. iii. 14 (following Isaiah lvi. 5)
and Tos. Megillah 2, 7, dealing with the religious obligations of eunuchs (Jewish
and proselyte), might be cited as indicating that the authors knew of no
exclusion of eunuchs as such from the temple worship.
1 Cf. Schiirer, GJV.‘ ii. pp. 357-363.
2 Cf. xv. 21 and see Harnack, Bible Reading in the Early Church, pp. 57
and 76 f.
3 Cf. Karl Pieper, ‘Wer war der Erstling der Heiden?’ in Zeitschrift fir
Missionswissenschaft, vol. v., 1915, pp. 124 ff. Eusebius, H.Z. ii. 1. 13, calls
the Ethiopian the first Gentile convert. Origen, Hom. ad Num. xi. 3, p. 306,
speaks of Cornelius as the first-fruits not only of the church of Caesarea,
but perhaps of all Gentiles, for he was the first to believe from the Gentiles
and the first filled with the Holy Spirit. Irenaeus, Adv. haer. iii. 18. 1,
evidently regarded the converts at Pentecost as the first-fruits of all the
nations.
Conclusions.
68 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
Jews of the diaspora or at least proselytes.1 But, as is argued on p. 113,
it is probable on the ground partly of textual evidence but still more of
internal evidence that Iovdaior should be omitted in vs. 5, but retained in
vs. 10. The writer probably regarded the event as the first and immediate
fulfilment of the combined promise and command in i. 8. The ‘ men of
every nation under heaven’ in ii. 5 correspond to ‘ the ends of the earth’
in i. 8. Of course the complete fulfilment came only when the disciples
travelled to remote districts, but it began when they spoke to those who
had come from these regions.
The preaching to these strangers was successful, and many of them
believed, ‘ and there were added in that day about three thousand souls’
(ii. 41). Therefore we need not be surprised if in chapter vi. the author
refers casually to Gentile Christians already in Jerusalem.? Certainly as
far as language is concerned, the story of Pentecost shows that the author
regarded the varieties in Jerusalem, even among converts to the Church,
as numbering not two but many.
The result of the preceding paragraphs is to suggest from a review of
Acts that the author did not represent the Church as taking a series of
systematic logical steps, which would imply the evolution of a changing
policy towards the problem of missionary work among the Gentiles. He
recognized of course that the process of conversion proceeded by degrees,
but the divine plan was present from the beginning; Luke’s real interest
is not the evolution of an institution, but the gradual attainment of God’s
predestined purpose. Such gradations of difference as, beginning with
orthodox Jews at one end of the scale, and ending with Greeks at the other,
1 We might argue that, even if we omit ’Iovdato at vs. 5, an audience called
evAaBets (vs. 5, see note) and addressed as Jews and dwellers in Jerusalem (vs.
14, see note) or Israelites (vs. 22) may have consisted of Jews, of full proselytes
(who were treated as Jews and admitted as such into the Christian Church
without controversy), and of looser adherents to Judaism (see Additional Note 8).
But why are Jews and proselytes named in vs. 10 as though only part of the
groups listed? Evidently the account of Pentecost is confused in more ways
than one. For Luke’s carelessness see Harnack, Luke the Physician, p. 112.
It is instructive to see with what circumspection Harnack has to use all these
items in Acts in giving his account of ‘The Transition from the Jewish to the
Gentile Mission’ (Mission, book i. chap. v.). Gardner in Cambridge Biblical
Essays, 1909, p. 391, throws out to defenders of Luke’s inerrancy the challenge:
“If anyone thinks him accurate in the report of fact, let such an advocate try
to determine, out of Acts, when and where Gentiles were first admitted as
members of the Christian Church.”
2 In like manner after mentioning the conversion of ‘E\Aynvords at Antioch
in Acts xi. 20 f. the author assumes in xv. 1 that there were uncircumcised
Christians there. The omission of ‘Iovdato in Acts ii. 5 and the consequent
interpretation of the assembly at Pentecost as Gentiles was urged by Blass,
Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, iii., 1892, pp. 826 ff. The objections of Zahn,
Introduction to the New Testament, § 2, note 8, are weighty, unless, as I believe,
the present account in Acts is a confusion on this question.
a
vir THE HELLENISTS 69
cover Jews of the Dispersion, Greek-speaking Jews, Samaritans, Proselytes,
and perhaps God-fearers—all these were doubtless well known to Luke,
and he regarded them all as coming under Christian influence. But that
influence did not pass through those gradations by a steady evolution, so
dear to our modern minds. On the contrary, all were represented at the
Day of Pentecost.
There is therefore no difficulty in supposing that Acts vi. 1 may have
introduced a story (perhaps from a new source, as is often supposed *)
in which Gentiles and Jews already formed the two national divisions of the
Jerusalem church. Whether this description is historically true is another
question. The scribes who added ’lovéaio: in ii. 5 obviously thought that
it was not. But it must be remembered that Jerusalem, then as now, was
not inhabited only by Jews. The existence of foreigners in it presents no
special difficulty, and Acts says nothing of the crucial question whether
the converts were circumcised. The whole problem is intimately bound up
with that of syncretistic types of religion—partly Jewish, partly heathen.
All recent inquiry suggests that more of these existed in Syria than used to
be thought (see especially the second edition of W. Bauer’s Commentary
on John in Lietzmann’s Handbuch).
Moreover, the possibility cannot be ignored that to some extent Luke
read back into the story of the beginning of the Church facts which were
and had long been a reality when he wrote. It should be remembered
that his material for this part of his work must have been fragmentary
and miscellaneous, and not easily conformed to such an evolutionary arrange-
ment as modern scholars would like to trace through it. The absence of
reliable information about the chronological order of the different episodes
would make precarious for him and for us any claim that the events mark
a logical and chronological progression. Even if the scene at Pentecost
was not understood by him as indicating the conversion of Gentiles to
Christianity, a reference at vi. 1 to Gentiles and their widows would really
be no more abrupt than the sudden and unexplained introduction of two
linguistic groups among the Christians. The author is perhaps here for the
first and nearly the only time distinguishing within the Church those who
were formerly Jews and those who were formerly Gentiles. For neither
of these categories has he a fixed terminology. Indeed there is scarcely a
terminology even to distinguish Christians from non-Christians, Jews who
were Christians from those who were not, etc. We have such loose terms
as of €k mepitouns miotoi (x. 45), of x mepiTopns (xi. 2), Teves TOV Gard
THS aipérews Tov Papwraiwy remictevKdtes (xv. 5), yuvaikds lovdaias
musts (xvi. 1), €v Tots ’lovdaiows Tov TemicTevKOTwV (xxi. 20), and Tots
1 See note on Acts vi. 1 ff. and Vol. II. pp. 128, 147f. Harnack, Acts, p. 219,
lists among cases of difficulty the abrupt introduction at vi. 1 of Hellenists and
Hebrews. But oi walyrai also appears here for the first time in Acts (cf. p. 109).
2 Even if he wished to give Gentile Christianity a methodical development,
the facts did not permit him to do so. He lets us see in spite of himself
that there were other communities or converts at Ephesus, Damascus, and
Alexandria. Cf. D. W. Riddle, Jesus and the Pharisees, 1928, pp. 57 ff.
Acts vi.
Acts ix.
Acts xi.
70 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
amd tOv Ovdv érurrpéhovow émi Tdv Gedy (xv. 19), Tots adeAdois Tois
e€ €Oviv (xv. 23), TOV memurrevKdtwv eOvav (xxi. 25). It would not be
surprising, then, if in speaking of Jewish and Gentile groups in the Church
he should use at vi. 1 ‘EBpaio. and ‘EAAnvwrai without repeating the
former at all and without using the latter later in quite the same sense
of Gentile Christians."
Of the other two passages in Acts one provides no obstacle to the view
that ‘ Hellenists ’ really means Gentiles, and the other confirms it, though
in each case the evidence is not quite decisive.
(i.) The first is Acts ix. 29 where we read of the newly converted Paul
that at Jerusalem ‘he spake and disputed against the Hellenists.’ The
context has nothing in it to indicate who are meant. But there is no reason
why the author may not be supposed to have introduced here a prompt
fulfilment of the prediction made at Paul’s conversion that he would be a
missionary to Gentiles. ;
(ii.) The other passage is Acts xi. 19 f. already referred to: ot peév ody
Siacrapevres ard THs OAcilews THs yevopevys Ext Trepavy SunAGov Ews
Poweikyns Kal Kimrpov kat *Avtioxelas, pndevt Aadodvytes Tov Adyov
ei py povov “loviaiow. woav dé tives €€ adrav avdpes Kirpioe Kat
Kvpnvaiou, ofriwes €AOdvres cis "Avtidxevav éXadovv Kat mpds Tovs
1 Tf Hellenists is a party name it may have originated not in Judaism but
in Christianity itself, used not so much of those whose race or language was
Jewish, but of those who, unlike many Christians (cf. "Iovdalfew Gal. ii. 14),
did not keep the Jewish way of life. Such a cleft existed already in Jerusalem,
So, as I understand him, argued G. P: son Wetter in Archiv fiir Religionswissen-
schaft, xxi., 1922, pp. 410 ff. He accepts the word neither at xi. 20 nor at
ix. 29 (which would put Paul among the Judaizers !).
My friend A. D. Nock is also inclined to regard ‘EA\nnorai as a Christian
party name. He writes me: ‘The curious thing is the matter-of-fact way in
which the word is used in vi. 1. Any Greek reader outside the Christian
circles would have been puzzled, I think. Now the two certain examples are
vi. 1 and ix. 29, both relating to Jerusalem. Have we here a Schlagwort, whose
meaning was familiar at the time but which disappeared from use? Supposing
the ecclesiastical literature of the nineteenth century were reduced to the
slender bulk of early Christian writings, T'ractarian might present very serious
difficulties. ‘EAAnvicrijs does seem to me to mean something quite definite.”
By a soméwhat different route Walter Bauer (‘Jesus der Galilier’ in
Festgabe fiir Adolf Jiilicher, 1927, pp. 32 f.) comes to the conclusion that
‘E\Anvioral is not a term for Greek-speaking Jews but is used of members of
the Christian community whether Jews or Gentiles ‘‘ who had no positive rela-
tion to the Law, and in any case did not allow themselves to be subjected to its
tyranny. In the main they probably originated from Galilee and the adjacent
heathen districts.” Bauer derives the word from é\Anvifew as meaning, in
antithesis to lovdaltew, ‘to conduct one’s life in the manner of the heathen,’
He adds in a note: ‘‘ What the word means in ix. 29I don’t know. In any
case there they are not believers as at vi. 1. ‘EAA. occurs beside at xi. 20 as
a variant, but only to strengthen the impression that the meaning of the
word was early lost to Christian usage.”
vil THE HELLENISTS 71
‘EAAnuords, ebayyeAr(opevor tov Kiptov “Incotv. The reading of the
best manuscript evidence is certainly in favour of “EAAnvords, though
AD®S* read. “EAAnvas. But the latter is the commoner word and is more
likely to have been substituted, especially since its usual correlative
*Iovdaiors occurs in the preceding verse. But if “EAAnviords is the right
reading,’ the same ‘lovdaiors and indeed the whole context show that it
cannot mean Jews—not even Greek-speaking ones—it must mean Gentiles
and be synonymous with” EAAnvas. We may feel assured that, if inter-
preters of the word “EAAnviocrai had taken their point of departure from
this third instance rather than from the first, they would have quickly
concluded that it meant not Jews but Gentiles.
The objection may perhaps be raised that the word thus loses any Conclusion.
distinction from” EAAnves, and that in vi. 1 “Epaiou is likewise made to
mean much the same as “Jovdaior. Would the author use two words in
the same sense for the same persons? I believe that he would, and that
his variation between” EAAnves and ‘EAAnviorai is parallel to his variation
for other words. It is worth noticing that while in the latter part of the book
of Acts” EAAnves is frequent, only “EAAnvirai is used in the first twelve
chapters. Possibly ‘EAAnviorai emphasizes more than the usual” EAAnves
the alien character of these persons in a mainly Jewish atmosphere. The
author of Acts is sensitive to make his words accord with the feeling of the
context. It is a matter of common knowledge that his variation between the
Greek and the Semitic spelling of Jerusalem (‘IepoodAvpa and ’lepovraAnp)
is best explained by the variation between the more or less Hellenic stand-
point of the context. With Paul and Barnabas travelling forth from the
Levant into the lands of Asia Minor the author makes two other changes.
The name Paul replaces Saul, and for the Jewish phrase God-reverer
(poBovpevor) he substitutes God-worshippers (c¢Bdpevor). My conjecture
is that at about the same point he quietly and unconsciously drops
“EAAnvioraté and uses “EAAnves.? In like manner ‘EPpaiou, though it
occurs only once to about 82 instances of *lovdaior, also occurs suitably
1 On the reading see among others F. J. A. Hort in Notes on Selected
Readings, pp. 93 f.; B. B. Warfield, ‘The Readings” E\Anvas and ‘EAnnoTds,
Acts xi. 20,’ Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, [iii.],
1883, pp. 113-127; J. H. Ropes, Beginnings of Christianity, vol. iii., 1926, on
Acts ix. 29 and xi. 20. On behalf of “E\\nvas see F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain
Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., 1894, vol. ii. pp.
370 f. The reading of N* (evayye\ords), due to confusion with the following
evayyeAtfouevor, apparently supports by its termination the reading of B, and
that A in ix. 29 shows the same tendency to alter ‘EXAnvicrds into“EXAnvas.
2 For other examples of such changes see my Making of Luke-Acts, pp.
225 ff. With the variation discussed in this note compare the limitation of
the word ’Icpa7\ to the songs and speeches of Luke and Acts except in the
familiar LXX phrase in the narrative of Acts v. 21 yepovola rar vidy ’Iopahr.
In the Sermon on the Mount Matthew twice uses of é@vxot for Gentiles
(v. 47, vi. 7) and once ra 26vn (vi. 32; Luke xii. 30 ra 207 Too xocuod), but it is
difficult to see any difference of meaning between them.
72 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
in this older narrative. There is reason to believe that other writers also
use it in an archaizing sense. Possibly a source suggested to Luke this
isolated occurrence.
The use of two words for the same thing is not unlike this author’s
habits. Elsewhere it would seem that he likes to substitute a long word
for a like-sounding shorter one. It is not merely that he likes prepositional
compounds, but that, for example, he uses in his preface éwedyrep for
ére.dy and rAnpodopéw for tAnpdw. Probably other examples exist in his
writings.? ‘EAAnvirrai both by its length and by its implication of contrast
is thus a more emphatic synonym for” EAAnves.
The evidence of the early versions and commentators is not adverse to
this interpretation. The Latin, Sahidic, Bohairic versions and the Syriac
Peshitto render ‘EAAnvirrai as they do” EAAnves. It may be argued that
they could not easily find one word to fit the meaning ‘ Greek-speaking
Jews,’ but to translate it simply ‘Greeks’ was misleading if they understood
it really of Jews.? A paraphrase would have been possible if not a single
word, and the Peshitto once does use the expression ‘those who knew
Greek.’ Strangely enough this is not at vi. 1 but at ix. 29. But the
Peshitto is later than Chrysostom, and was made in circles which were
affected by Antiochian influences.*
It may be that the word was not familiar to translators. I have spoken
of its infrequent occurrence in the writings known to us. Chrysostom,
Hom. xiv. on vi. 1, says “EAAnvicras 8€ ofpar xadciv (sc. Aovkay) tovs
EXdAnvicti POeyyopevovs: obrow yap “EAAnuoti dueAéyovto “EBpaior
ovtes.5 It is evident that Chrysostom is guessing, though he is usually
sure enough of his Greek. He uses the expressions o/ua and iows, and
1 See Windisch on 2 Cor. xi. 22: “in allen spiteren Schriften in
archaistischem oder in gehobenem Stil.”
2 See Vol. II. p. 496; E. von Dobschiitz, Vom Auslegen des Neuen
Testaments, 1927, p. 12, note 23. I may venture here to suggest a few cases
of possible sesquipedalian substitution in the Book of Acts: ii. 46 adgedérnre
xapdias for the usual amdérnre xapdias (see note ad loc.); xiii. 18 (from LXX
Deut. i. 31) rporopopéw or rpopopopéw for rpégw; xvii. 4 mpooexrynpwOnoar,
cf. v. 36 mpocexXlOn with v.l. rpooexo\dA7On; xvi. 37, xxii. 25 dxardxpiros for
the usual dxpiros; xviii. 28 diaxarndéyxerTo, cf. xvii. 17, xviii. 4, etc., Suedéyero;
xx. 24 redevdow (v.1. -Goa) tov Spduor, cf. xiii. 25, 2 Tim. iv. 7; xx. 32
KAnpovoulay év rots jy.acuévo.s, cf. xxvi. 18 kAfpov ev rois qytacuévors, Col. i. 12
KAfjpov Trav dyiwy ; xxv. 7 airupara karapéportes, cf. 18 airiay épepor.
% Those who believe that these chapters of Acts are the rendering of an
Aramaic original will be equally puzzled to know what Semitic term can lie
behind ‘Edn ral if the one Greek word means explicitly Greek-speaking Jews-
4 Eb. Nestle, ZNT'W. iii., 1902, pp. 248 f., in noting two other agreements
in Acts between Chrysostom and the Peshitto (i. 12 dwéyov orddia éxrd;
XViii. 3 cxvrordéuos) suggests the reverse relation, that Chrysostom worked from
the Syriac.
5 Cf. Hom. xxv. on xi. 21 tows da 7d wh eldévar “EBpasori, “EXAnvas (sic)
avrovs éxdkowv. Evidently Chrysostom’s text and commentary originally read
‘E\Anuords here. A like note, but of contrary nature, occurs in the Armenian
via THE HELLENISTS 73
he is making inferences from the likeness of “EAAnvicrai to the adverb
‘EAAnvori. Since his day commentators have followed him except in his
admission of doubt, so that it is worth while to remind ourselves how little
we really know of the word Hellenists and how much can be said on behalf
of regarding it as much more nearly a synonym for ‘ Greek’ or ‘ Gentile.’
Certainly it must mean non-Jews rather than Jews at xi. 20, where our
only escape is to adopt what is textually the inferior reading “KAAnvas,
probably an emendation rendered necessary by accepting Chrysostom’s
exegesis of vi. 1.
It is, of course, not the intention of this note to suggest that there
were no Greek-speaking Jews. In the diaspora they were abundant. The
inscriptions in the Jewish catacombs at Rome are with slight exception
not in Hebrew or Aramaic,! nor does Egypt under the Ptolemies or the
Caesars yield many Semitic papyri from the many Jews there.? In the
former place they used Greek or Latin, in the latter Greek or Demotic. In
Palestine also, where Luke mentions the Hellenists, doubtless many Jews
spoke Greek, not only in Galilee near the Decapolis but also in Jerusalem.
If we retain for Hellenjst its supposed meaning of those who could speak
Greek, there were doubtless Hellenists there, including some of the many
Jews who had returned from abroad. Like Paul, many if not most of them
could also speak Aramaic. The surprise expressed in Acts xxii. 2 was not
that a Jew of the dispersion could speak Aramaic, but that a stranger not
recognized as a Jew at all but perhaps an Egyptian (xxi. 38) or one of some
other nationality should prove able to speak in Aramaic.
How many Jews knew Greek only, whether in Palestine or abroad, we
do not know. Nor do we know by what name they were distinguished.
Evidently not commonly by ‘ Hellenists’ or the word would occur more
frequently. The rabbinic sources also fail to show a definite designation
for Greek-speaking Jews. In Palestine neither the various vernaculars nor
the language of the learned appear to have had any simple classification of
Jews in accordance with their use or non-use of the Aramaic or Greek
catena (Vol. III. p. 437) on the difficult passage xviii. 17, where Codex Bezae
and the Antiochian text describe those who beat Sosthenes as “E\\nves: “‘ By
Greeks here he means those Jews who spoke in the Greek language.” The
preceding words are from Chrysostom, the succeeding ones from Ephrem.
Either the commentator read ‘E\Anoral or he felt that “EXAnves had the same
force as was usually given to that word. I may add, if only to increase our
confusion, that it seems to some students of John quite possible that “EAAnves
in that gospel (vii. 35, xii. 20) means precisely the diaspora or Greek-speaking
Jews.
1 Schirer, GJ V. iiit pp. 140 f. Even Scriptural personal names are quite
scarce in the Jewish sepulchral inscriptions at Rome.
2 L. Fuchs, Die Juden Agyptens in ptolemdischer wnd rémischer Zeit, 1924,
pp. 114 ff. L. Blau, Papyri und Talmud in gegenseitiger Beleuchtung, 1913,
p- 10, writing of Egypt emphatically declares “there can be no doubt
that there was in the Hellenistic world an Aramaic diaspora beside the
Greek diaspora.” His evidence is, however, slight. See also A. Causse, Les
Dispersés d’Israél, 1929.
The Jewish
Mission.
74 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
language, though there are many references to the Jews abroad living
among the Gentiles, of kara 7a €Ovn ‘lovdaior (Acts xxi. 21). Possibly
within Judaism they did not form as distinct, self-conscious, and well
labelled a group as we have commonly supposed. They were much more
aware of their difference from Gentiles. The frequent bilingualism of the
first century doubtless made less conspicuous and significant the relatively
few Jews who spoke exclusively either Greek or Aramaic. Using the terms
in their generally accepted meaning, J. H. Moulton says: ‘“‘ There were
clearly senses in which it was possible to be both Hebrew and Hellenist—
Hebrew in that the tie to the mother country was never broken and
Aramaic was retained as the language of the family circle, Hellenist in that
foreign residence demanded perpetual use of Greek from childhood.” ?
On the other hand the difference between Jews (or Hebrews) and
Gentiles (or Greeks) was not insignificant. The Book of Acts is aware of it
and never obliterates it in its story of Christianity, though Paul gives an
impression of the relation between them more hostile in fact and more
united in theory than does the Book of Acts. The three occurrences of
“EAAnviora/ in it are perhaps to be understood as indicating in two cases
the missionary approach of Jewish Christians like Paul and the men of
Cyprus and Cyrene to non-Jews, in the other as an early case of friction
between the two elements within the Church.
Note VIII. ProsEtytEs AND GOD-FEARERS
By Kirsopr Lake
The existence of the Diaspora of the Jews produced what is sometimes
called the Jewish mission. But this phrase is liable to be misunderstood.
There is no evidence at all that missionaries were ever sent out in the modern
1 Cf. supra, pp. 69 ff. As time went on sub-classification of this sort did not
increase either in Christianity or in Judaism, and was less needed as Greek-
speaking Jews and Aramaic-speaking Christians became negligible. Only three
groups emerged needing sharp distinction—the Jews, the Gentiles, and the
Christians. See Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung, vol. i., Exkurs. ‘ Die
Beurteilung der Christen als drittes Geschlecht.’
It is evident that much of the neatly pigeon-holed picture of the early
church and its rivals to which we are accustomed goes further than our
sources warrant. Beside the doubts expressed here about the Hellenists
and Hebrews, the new historian of the apostolic age will have to consider the
questions simultaneously raised by D. W. Riddle in the Anglican Theological
Review, xii., 1929, pp. 15 fi., ‘The So-called Jewish Christians,’ and by J. H.
Ropes in his ‘Singular Problem of the Epistle to the Galatians,’ 1929.
Without ‘Hellenists’ in Acts, or ‘Judaizers’ behind Galatians, or ‘Jewish
Christians’ anywhere, such a book as’ Hort’s Judaistic Christianity would
require drastic re-writing. :
2 Cambridge Biblical Essays, 1909, p. 481. Both Philo (note 2, p. 63)
and Chrysostom (see p. 72) still seem to call such Greek-speaking Jews ‘ESpaiou.
vil PROSELYTES AND GOD-FEARERS ! 0
or Christian sense. But wherever Jews settled, they established a synagogue
which, by its peculiar practices, attracted the attention of non-Jews who
were not wholly satisfied with heathenism.
The facts have been so excellently stated by my friend, Professor G. F.
Moore, that I venture to put in his words what I could not express equally
well in my own. Even, he says, “if some of the methods of Jewish apolo-
getic and polemic provoked prejudice rather than produced conviction,
the belief in the future universality of the true religion, the coming of an
age when ‘ the Lord shall be king over all the earth,’ when ‘ the Lord shall
be one and his name One,’ led to efforts to convert the Gentiles to the
worship of the one true God and to faith and obedience according to the
revelation he had given, and made Judaism the first great missionary
religion of the Mediterranean world. When it is called a missionary religion,
the phrase must, however, be understood with a difference. The Jews did
not send out missionaries? into the partes infidelium expressly to proselyte
among the heathen. They were themselves settled by thousands in all the
great centres and in innumerable smaller cities ; they had appropriated the
language and much of the civilization of their surroundings ; they were
engaged in the ordinary occupations, and entered into the industrial and
commercial life of the community and frequently into its political life.
Their religious influence was exerted chiefly through the synagogues, which
they set up for themselves, but which were open to all whom interest or
curiosity drew to their services. To Gentiles, in whose mind these services,
consisting essentially of reading from the Scriptures and a discourse more
or less loosely connected with it, lacked all the distinctive features of cultus,
the synagogue, as has been observed above, resembled a school of some
foreign philosophy. That it claimed the authority of inspiration for its
sacred text and of immemorial tradition for its interpretation, and that
the reading was prefaced by invocations of the deity and hymns in his
praise, was in that age quite consistent with this character. That the
followers of this philosophy had many peculiar rules about food and dress
and multiplied purifications was also natural enough in that time.
“The philosophy itself, whose fundamental doctrines seemed to be
monotheism, divine providence guided by justice and benevolence, and
reasonable morality, had little about it that was unfamiliar. Even what
they sometimes heard about retribution after death, or a coming conflagra-
tion which should end the present order of things, was not novel. But at
the bottom Judaism was something wholly different from a philosophy
which a man was free to accept in whole or in part as far as it carried the
assent of his intelligence. It might be a reasonable religion, but it was in
an eminent degree a religion of authority ; a revealed religion, which did
1 Judaism, i. pp. 323 f. See also A. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten
und der Juden zu den Fremden, 1896, and J. Juster, Les Juifs dans Vempire
romain, 1914, i. pp. 253 ff.
2 It is perhaps curious that Moore does not refer to Matt. xxiii. 15, which
‘speaks of the Jews compassing sea and land to make one proselyte, but
apparently there is nothing in Rabbinic writings to suggest that this means
missionary enterprise in the modern sense.
76 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
not ask man’s approval but demanded obedience to the whole and every
part, reason and inclination to the contrary notwithstanding ; an exclusive
religion which tolerated no divided allegiance ; a religion which made a
man’s eternal destiny depend on his submission of his whole life to its law,
or his rejection of God who gave the law. Such, at least, was the rigour of
the doctrine when it was completely and logically presented.
ay mag “Tt is certain that it was not always preached so uncompromisingly.
Diaspora. Especially in the Hellenistic world, polytheism and idolatry was so de-
cisively the characteristic difference between Gentile and Jew that the
rejection of these might almost seem to be the renunciation of heathenism
and the adoption of Judaism ; and if accompanied by the observance of
the sabbath and conformity to the rudimentary rules of clean and unclean
which were necessary conditions of social intercourse, it might seem to be a
respectable degree of conversion. Nor are utterances of this tenor lacking
in Palestinian sources ; e.g. The rejection of idolatry is the acknowledge-
ment of the whole law.
The religious ‘Such converts were called religious persons (‘ those who worship, or
heathen. revere, God ’),? and although in a strict sense outside the pale of Judaism,
undoubtedly expected to share with Jews by birth the favour of the God
they had adopted, and were encouraged in this hope by their Jewish
teachers. It was not uncommon for the next generation to seek incorpora-
tion into the Jewish people by circumcision.’ .. .
** However numerous such ‘ religious persons’ were, and with whatever
complaisance the Hellenistic synagogue, especially, regarded these results of
its propaganda, whatever hopes they may have held out to such as thus
confided in the uncovenanted mercies of God, they were only clinging to the
skirt of the Jew (Zech. viii. 23); they were like those Gentile converts to
Christianity who are reminded in the Epistle to the Ephesians that in their
former state, when they were called uncircumcised by the so-called circum-
cision, they were aliens to the Israelite commonwealth, foreigners without
tight in the covenanted promises.” 4
Proselytes In the eighteenth century the erroneous custom arose * of saying that
of the Gate. these ‘religious persons’ were regarded by the Jews as a special kind of
proselyte—proselytes of the Gate. That is now recognized as a mistake,
but the evil result has remained, so that even in books such as Strack-
Billerbeck’s magnificent commentary on the New Testament, the name of
* half-proselyte’ is given to this class of non-Jew who was interested in
Judaism. Yet this name is surely unjustifiable. A proselyte is within the
covenant, a non-Jew is without it, and fractional proselytes are impossible.
1 Sifré Num. § 111; Deut. § 54; Hullin 5a, and parallels. One who
renounces idolatry is called in Scripture a Jew. Megillah 13a, top.
2 doBovpevar Tov Oedv, ceBduevac Tov Oedv, or abbreviated, ceBduevon. In
Hebrew, pnw ox.
3 Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96 ff.
4 danddorpiwpévo. Tis modcrelas Tod "Iopanr Kal tévor Trav Siabnxav ris
érayyenlas, Ephesians ii. 12. Proselytes, on the contrary, have come over to
Kawvy Kal didobéw trodirela, Philo, De monarchia, c. 7 § 51 (M. ii. p. 219).
5 See below, p. 81.
vor PROSELYTES AND GOD-FEARERS 77
After abandoning the view that this non-Jew interested in Judaism was God-fearers.
called a proselyte of the Gate, scholars adopted the theory, first made
popular by Jacob Bernays, that in Acts these non-Jews were called ‘ God-
fearers,’ poBovpevor or weBdpevor Tov Oedv, and that the same phrase in
the LXX also applies to them. This is doubtless correct, though the
technical nature of the phrase has been exaggerated. (For the discussion
of this point see pp. 82 ff.)
Thus it is clear that the synagogues in the large cities of the Roman
Empire were surrounded by a fringe of non-Jew worshippers, some of whom
ultimately became proselytes, some of whom did not. It is also probable
that some of the non-Jew worshippers may have thought that a combina-
tion of the best points of Judaism with the best points of heathenism
would be a more satisfactory religion than either. (For the evidence that
this actually happened see pp. 88 ff.)
Obviously this fringe of non-Jews, not satisfied with heathenism, and
hesitating whether to become proselytes or to start some new method of
worshipping God, provided the Christian missionaries with the best possible
opportunity for making converts. Almost certainly a majority of the first
Greek Christians came from this class, and this illumines two of their char-
acteristics which are otherwise difficult to explain. On the one hand they
were not Jews—the existence of any large body of Jews converted to
Christianity is doubtful and improbable’—but on the other hand they
were all acquainted with the LXX.
This note is therefore devoted to discussing three topics belonging to
the general subject of Jewish missionary practice and terminology :
(i.) The requirements made from converts to Judaism.
(ii.) The words used to describe proselytes, and those who were in
varying degrees interested in Judaism.
(iii.) The evidence for separate syncretistic cults organized by those
who, starting with an interest in Judaism, ended by establishing
societies distinct from, though analogous to, the Synagogue or
the Church.
(i.) The Requirements made from Converts who wished to become
full Members of the Synagogue
The requirements which the Jews laid down for accepting a convert
into the People were :
(a) Some kind of instruction. The nature of this instruction was Jewish
probably left to individual rabbis in the earliest period and afterwards ™*tuction.
became standardized, but no written record exists. It has been argued,
notably by Taylor, Seeberg, and Klein, that the Christian Didache is based
upon a Jewish book of instructions for converts which was called The Two
Ways. This is possible, but the evidence adduced does not amount to
demonstration. It should, however, be noted that it is quite inconceivable
1 See especially J. H. Ropes, ‘The Singular Problem of the Epistle to the
Galatians,’ in the’ Harvard Theological Studies, xiv. (1929).
Circum-
cision.
Baptism.
78 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
that this process of instruction did not exist. Jews and Gentiles were
both intelligent groups and neither would wish to make converts or to be
converted without some understanding of the questions involved. So
that in any district where the Jewish mission was at all successful there
must have been a group of Gentiles interested in Judaism but not yet
fully converted.
(b) The one essential for reception into the People was circumcision.
This is so universally acknowledged that it is unnecessary to accumulate
evidence. But it is very interesting to notice that there is in Judaism a
curious controversy between the school of Shammai and the school of
Hillel as to the validity of circumcision ex opere operato. If a man who
belonged to an Arab tribe which practised circumcision was converted to
Judaism, was this non-Jewish or heretical circumcision to be regarded as
valid ? The school of Shammai said ‘no’; the school of Hillel said ‘ yes.’
Obviously Cyprian would have felt quite at home in this discussion.
(c) Baptism.—In Judaism washing the body was one of the ways by
which an Israelite who had become unclean through leprosy or through
ceremonial accident could recover his cleanliness. Similarly a convert was
washed or baptized when he was taken in to the People. It was true that a
heathen, inasmuch as he was not under the Law, could not be unclean in
the sense of the Law, but from the point of view of the Jew he was as a
heathen essentially unclean. (Cf. John xviii. 28 and Acts x. 28.) It would
appear that as time went on this baptism became more and more important.
The earliest evidence of it seems to be contained in the story of a dispute
between the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel. According to
the school of Shammai, if a proselyte was circumcised on the day before
the Passover he was baptized and then could eat the Passover, but the
school of Hillel said that the circumcised are like those who have been
defiled by the grave (that is, by touching a corpse or a grave), and there-
fore could not be baptized for seven days. Whether this baptism was on
a level with other ceremonial washings or had a different nature is open
to argument. (For the evidence about this controversy see Strack, vol. i.
pp. 102 f.; G. F. Moore, Judaism, vol. iii. note 103.)
This baptism gradually became more and more important. In the case
of women it was the only act of initiation, and it is not difficult to see that
this would tend to make it more and more important for men also. The
classical illustration of this fact is a discussion between Rabbi Eliezer ben
Hyrcanus and Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah. Eliezer (representing the
school of Shammai) maintained that the convert is a proselyte, ie. an
adopted member of the People, as soon as he has been circumcised, and
independently of baptism, while Rabbi Joshua went so far as to claim that
a man was a proselyte if he were baptized even though he were not circum-
cised. But the opinion of Rabbi Joshua appears to have been in the nature
of a paradox which no one else accepted. The story is given in a baraita
(Yebamot 46a). “Of a proselyte who is circumcised but not baptized,”
said Rabbi Eliezer b. Hyrkanus, “ behold, that man is a proselyte, for we
find it so among our fathers (the Israelites who came out of Egypt) because
they were circumcised but not baptized (before the entrance into the
vit PROSELYTES AND GOD-FEARERS 79
covenant of Sinai).’”’ If he was baptized and had not been circumcised, so
said Joshua b. Hananiah, “‘ behold he is a proselyte, for we find it so among
our mothers (the Israelitish women who came out of Egypt) that they were
baptized but not circumcised (at their entrance into the covenant of Sinai).
But the learned (that is the contemporaries of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi
Joshua) said, If he has been baptized, but has not been circumcised, or if
he has been circumcised but has not been baptized, he is no proselyte until
he is circumcised and has been baptized.”
The suggestion that baptism without circumcision was valid is startling
and contrary to everything which we know of Judaism, but two things
must be remembered. In the first place, much of the controversy attri-
buted to distinguished rabbis in the Talmud is merely staged in order to
clear up a position by more or less fictitious opposition. In the second
place, the question has been raised whether behind this argument there is
not a certain sense that belief, circumcision, and baptism form a connected
whole. The first step—belief—implies an obligation to the other two, and
so also circumcision and baptism each implies an obligation to the other.
Undoubtedly this would be accepted as a fair statement by any learned
Jew. The question was at what stage in this threefold process did the
convert enter upon the full possession of the privileges given to him. The
old answer was when he was circumcised ; the later answer was when he
had been circumcised and baptized, and the passages dealing with the
subject in the Talmud are intended to emphasize the importance of baptism,
not to minimize that of circumcision. Thus, for instance, according to
Yebamot 46a, Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, who lived about a.p. 280, declared
that the children of a Jewish mother and of a proselyte who had been
circumcised but not baptized were illegitimate, and according to the Abodah
Zarah 57a, Rabbi Simi ben Hiyya said that slaves bought from the heathen,
who had been circumcised but not baptized, defiled by their footprints on
the street.
(zd) A fourth requirement in theory was that the proselyte should offer Sacrifice.
sacrifice in the temple. Clearly this could not be carried out because the
temple had been destroyed, and it remained in a condition of suspense.
It is obvious that to the Christian scholar the most important part of Christian
these conditions for the acceptance of a proselyte are the two which were aa
taken over by the Christian church—instruction and baptism. Originally,
as in Judaism, instruction preceded baptism, though the position was
reversed when child baptism was introduced, just as it was reversed in
Judaism where, with children born into the covenant, circumcision pre-
ceded instruction. Unfortunately we have no examples of the formula-
tion of Jewish instruction contemporary with the New Testament ; it may
have influenced Christian instruction, but here again our knowledge does
not begin to be full until much later. Roughly speaking, we have four main
sources of information: (i.) the Didache, (ii.) the Didascalia, (iii.) the
Epistola Apostolorum, and (iv.) the Epideixis of Irenaeus. Except in the
Didache, there would seem to be little trace of Jewish influence, but much
anti-Jewish argument. In the Didache there is perhaps evidence that an
Ger.
The two
meanings
of ger.
80 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
early document was used—‘ The Two Ways ’—and that this was based on
an original Jewish book of instruction. Such, at least, is the opinion of
Klein? and others who have special knowledge of the Jewish sources. It
is also probable that the instructions for worship which follow ‘ The Two
Ways’ are influenced by Jewish practice, though largely by way of con-
trast. Thus the Eucharistic and other prayers are constructed on Jewish
lines, but the Lord’s Prayer is substituted for the Tefillah, and the fast
days, Wednesday and Friday, are chosen in contrast to Monday and
Thursday.
(ii.) The Names used for Converts
HeEsrew. (i.) Ger (711).—Two views have been held about the meaning
of this word. (a) Throughout the Old Testament it means a non-Israelite
living in Israelite territory. This is the older view, at least in modern books,
and is accepted without discussion in Strack ii. pp. 715 ff. (b) It has this
meaning in the more primitive parts of the Law, including Deuteronomy,
but in the later parts, and in the later books generally, it means a convert
to the religion of Israel. This view is adopted by Moore in Judaism,
i. pp. 328 ff.,? and seems to have the weight of evidence in its favour.
In rabbinical writings the word ger has the second meaning and is used
to describe a Gentile who has become a Jew by the methods discussed on
pp. 77 ff.
Owing to this change in meaning, it was necessary to distinguish
between ger in the original sense and ger in the later. Thus Kohut’s ‘Aruch
Completum says, “ There is a ger who is a foreigner residing in Israel who
has promised not to serve other Gods. He is a ger toshab. There is also a
ger who has become a convert in all respects and has become a Jew. This
is the ger zedek.”” That the rabbis fully recognized that the ger in the
primitive sense was, to say the least, frequently not a convert, can
be shown by such passages as the commentary on Exodus xx. 10 in the
Mekilia of Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai: “If this had referred to a ger zedek
(that is, a convert), it would repeat what had been said already where it
is said that there shall be one law to you and to the ger... . ‘Thy ger’
refers to the ger toshab who is your hired man, and the command prevents
Israelites from forcing him to work on the Sabbath ; but he may work if
he himself will.”
Human nature being what it is, it is obvious that conversion is often
due to mixed motives, and the rabbis distinguished these motives by
the various adjectives which they used to describe different types of ger.
A convert actuated by worthy motives was a ger sedek or ger emet, a
proselyte from righteous motives or for the sake of the truth ; and similarly
the convert actuated by unworthy motives was described as a ger zeker,
a proselyte of fraud. Most of these phrases are self-explanatory, but there
is one which calls for explanation as a curiosity of literary allusion. This
is the ‘ lion proselyte,’ which means a convert through fear of consequences,
and the reference is to the story in 2 Kings xvii. 24-33 which described
1 G. Klein, Der dlteste christliche Katechismus.
2 See also Robertson Smith, 0.7.J.C. 2nd ed. p. 342 note 1.
vir PROSELYTES AND GOD-FEARERS 81
how the aliens introduced into the region of Samaria by the Assyrians
after the captivity of the Northern Kingdom were attacked by lions and
accepted the worship of Jehovah on the theory that the lions came
from him.
Thus ger completely changed its meaning; instead of being a foreigner
living among Israelites but not converted to their religion, the ger came to
be the name of a foreigner who was converted.
(ii.) Z’oshab.—Another name used in the Old Testament to describe Toshab.
these strangers living in the land of Israel was toshab (2v.n), and this word
and ger were frequently combined with a copula (ger we-toshab). The
phrase is generally represented in the English version by ‘stranger and
sojourner’ and in the LXX by zpooyAvtos 7) raporxos. Without the
copula between the words it is found in the Old Testament only in Lev.
xxv. 47, and inasmuch as in this passage the Samaritan and the ancient
versions insert the copula the reading of the Massoretic text may be
accidental. Nevertheless it is apparently the origin of rabbinic use; for
to express the original meaning of ger the rabbis took over the phrase
ger toshab and used it in the sense of an unconverted foreigner who lived
in the land of Israel. It was especially used to explain ger in the Old
Testament, where it obviously could not mean a convert (cf. the quotation
given above from the Mekilta of Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai). It will be
seen, however, that the phrase had little more than archaeological or
exegetical importance, as in the days when it was used Israel possessed
no territory of its own.
The rabbis laid down various rules for governing intercourse between Noachian
Jews and the ger toshab. These rules naturally enough are all put in the ™!*-
form of regulations implying the possession of Palestine by the Jews. The
ger toshab was required to keep the seven commandments known as
‘ Noachian,’ that is to say traditionally given by Noah to his sons. These
seven commandments are directed against blasphemy, idolatry, fornication,
the shedding of blood, robbery, the use of meat containing blood ! (lit.
from a living animal), and disobedience to the legal authorities. It is
possible that they represent a real tradition as to the practice of Israel in
Palestine, but it is very curious that they do not include the observation
of the Sabbath. It has been suggested that in practice these regulations
were used in the time of the rabbis to control the conduct of those who
were meditating conversion or for other reasons wished to be on friendly
terms with the Jews, but the evidence that this was the case is lacking
_ and the theory merely depends on general probability. For the possible
relations between the Noachian commandments and the apostolic decrees
in Acts xv. see Addit. Note 16.
(iii.) Ger sha‘ar.—At quite a late period the mediaeval rabbis possibly Proselytes
but not certainly used the phrase ger sha‘ar, generally translated in modern % *¢ te.
books ‘ proselyte of the gate.’ This expression is said to have been used
as a synonym for a ger toshab in allusion to the Old Testament phrase
‘the stranger within your gates,’ for which it is an abbreviation, but
1 This was the additional command given to Noah; the remainder were
given to Adam.
VOL. V G
Fearers of
Heaven.
Greek ren-
derings of
ger.
82 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
according to Strack, vol. ii. p. 723, it was first used by Rabbi Bechai in
the thirteenth century.1 Unfortunately the phrase caught the eye of
Deyling in the eighteenth century, and in his Observationes Sacrae (1720),
vol. ii. pp. 462-469, he devoted part of his essay De weBopevors Tov Oedv to
arguing that the o<¢Gdmevor Tdv Gedy are the proselytes of the gate. This
identification was generally accepted, so that it figured in all books on
the New Testament up to and including the second edition of Schiirer’s
Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes. But in his third edition Schiirer showed
that Deyling’s view was unsound. However, owing partly to the fact that
the English translation of Schiirer was made from the second German
edition, it is still quite frequently met with.
(iv.) Jere Shamaim.—Another phrase important in this problem is
jere shamaim (pnw oxy), ‘ fearers of Heaven,’ which was used to describe
a Gentile who had accepted the truth of the Jewish religion but had not
joined it by being circumcised. This use can be traced back as far as the
Midrash Rabbah on Deuteronomy (cf. Mekilia on Exod. xxii. 20) in con-
nexion with a story referred to the time of Gamaliel III. (circa a.p. 90).
There does not appear to be any clear evidence of this use in earlier litera-
ture, but in the later Midrashim it is fairly often used, and the writers
explain that the phrase jere adonai (for which jere shamaim is of course
merely a substitute with the usual shamaim by metonymy for adonai),
which is so common in the Old Testament, has this peculiar meaning, which
modern writers generally represent by the very dubious phrase ‘ half-
proselyte.’ It is, however, extremely doubtful whether there is really
any passage in the Old Testament where the phrase has this meaning,
and in an overwhelming majority of instances it is merely used to indicate
the exemplary nature of the Israelite to whom it refers. It is perhaps
desirable to point out that eisegesis has often been substituted for exegesis
in treating the phrase in the Old Testament. For instance, 2 Chron. v. 6
is sometimes quoted as an example of a reference to ‘ half-proselytes ’ as
jere shamaim or poPBotpevor rdv Oedv, but, apart from the fact that there
is nothing in the Hebrew to represent of hoBovpevor Tov Gedy, it is tolerably
clear that the real meaning is ‘ the whole house of Israel ’—the pious and
the proselytes.
THE GREEK. (i.) tpoojAvtos and wdpotxos.—In the LXX ger is
rendered sometimes by rpoo7AvTos, sometimes by rdpovxos, and in two
passages (Exod. xii. 19; Is. xiv. 1) by yeswpas, which is a transliteration
of the Aramaic for ger. (Cf. Simon ben Giora in the Jewish war.)
It has often been held that rpoo7Avros in the LXX is a synonym of
mdpovkos and that both words correctly render the meaning of ger=a
foreigner, not a convert. This view was maintained by Geiger, Urschrift
und Ubersetzungen der Bibel, pp. 353 ff., and is adopted with little or no
discussion by Schiirer and Strack.
The evidence of Josephus and Philo is interesting in its implication
1 G. F. Moore, Judaism, i. p. 341, knows of no occurrence earlier than R.
Moses ben Nahman (d. 1270).
vir PROSELYTES AND GOD-FEARERS 83
rather than its direct statements. Josephus? apparently does not use the Josephus.
word mpoo7Avtos, and Philo uses it only three times. In each case it is
with reference to a passage in the Old Testament, and he explains the word
almost apologetically. Apparently the word did not seem to cultivated
Greek-speaking Jews to be a satisfactory phrase to be used in educated
Greek, as indeed might be guessed from its absence from Greek literature
in general. Nevertheless a passage from De monarchia makes it plain that
Philo interpreted the word rpooyAvtos as meaning a convert. In the Philo.
De monarchia, 7, § 51, M. ii. p. 219, he says: kat ravras Tovs éuorotpdémovs
eit obv hivras €£ dpxns «ite Kal ex Tov petaBdAXerGat mpds TV
dpeivw TaEw Kpeitrous yeyovdtas arodexeTat, TOYS pev OTL THY EvyéevEeLav
ov katédvoay, Tos & dtu mpds eboéBevav HElwrav peOoppicacbai—
tovtovs S¢ KaAdei mpoondvrovs dard Tod mporeAndrAvOévat Kay Kal
dirobew rodtteig,—ol pvOikav pev drAoyoto. TAaT ATHY, TepLexovTat
dé dxparpvovs dAnOeias. Obviously this interpretation is connected with
the change in the meaning of ger, which in turn reflects the gradual
development of Israel from a nation with resident aliens to a church with
converts, and corroborative evidence can be found in De sacrificantibus,
10, § 308 f. (M. ii. p. 258); De iustitia 6, § 176 ff. (M. ii. p. 365); De humani-
tate, 12, § 102 ff. (M. ii. p. 392); De poenitentia, 1, § 175 ff. (M. ii. p. 405).
Thus beyond doubt the development of the word tpoo7Avtos was the
same in Greek as that of ger in Hebrew. The question is whether the
change was made before or after the translation of the Old Testament into
Greek. In other words, should we always translate tpoojAvros in the
LXX by ‘sojourner,’ or did it in the intention of the translator mean
‘convert’ ?
There is no doubt but that wdpotxos means a resident foreigner—ger
in the older sense—but zpoo7Avrtos is a more doubtful question, for it is
certain that in the New Testament and in Patristic Greek it regularly means
a convert. But Geiger and his successors were influenced by the view that
ger in the Old Testament always means a resident foreigner, and thought
that the change of meaning both in ger and in rpoo7jAvros was not made
until the first century A.D.
An article by W. C. Allen (Zxpositor, October 1894, pp. 264 ff.), which
seems to have been strangely overlooked, gives a full analysis of the question
and suggests that the matter is not so simple as it is usually represented.
He points out that although it is true that in biblical Hebrew the ger is
a foreigner, and only in rabbinical writings is regularly used to mean a
convert, still the priestly code in the Pentateuch shows that the word
was fast developing into the later sense, and he goes on to argue that
by the time of the LXX the word had already acquired its later meaning.
The translators were aware of the change, used mdporxos in passages
where ger obviously can only mean ‘ foreigner,’ and substituted pooyAvtos
where the word might conceivably be used for ‘ convert.’ That is to say,
in Allen’s words, “in the great majority of cases where ger occurs in the
Hebrew text the Greek translators have not simply translated into the
1 Josephus, Antig. xviii. 3. 5, § 82, almost presupposes the word by using
the perf. part. rpoceAndvOviar.
W. C. Allen.
Fearing
God,
84 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
exact Greek equivalent but have read into the word the later meaning
which it has in the Mishna.” Allen goes on to give a list of passages in
which ger is translated by +épotxos, and in all of them the sense of ‘convert’
is excluded by the context. He then gives a list of 69 passages in which
mpoonAvros renders ger and may have been interpreted as ‘ convert,’
though this was not the real meaning of the original Hebrew. Furthermore,
he argues that just as the LX X distinguishes the sense in which it interprets
ger by using sometimes répotxos and sometimes tpoo/Avtos, so it dis-
tinguishes it in the cognate words which have to be rendered by verbs,
sometimes using wapocxeiy but changing to mpocépyerOar when the
sense of convert appears possible. He is, however, obliged to force the
meaning a little in some instances, especially those in which ger is used
of the Israelites in Egypt. They were certainly not ‘ converts’ but quite
definitely ‘sojourners’; nevertheless in these passages ger is sometimes
rendered by tpooyjAvros and not by mépoixos (Exod. xxii. 20, xxiii. 9;
Lev. xix. 34; Deut. x. 19).
Thus, though Allen’s paper certainly shows that the question is not
quite so simple as it is often represented to be, he seems somewhat to
overstate his case. It is true that rdpoxos is used eleven times, and that
in these cases the sense ‘ convert’ is inadmissible; and it is also true that
in the much larger number of passages where zpoo7jAvros is used it is
often possible to suppose that the translator meant ‘convert,’ that is to
say, was interpreting ger in the later rabbinic sense. But even so he has
to admit that in certain passages mpoo7AvTos cannot mean ‘convert,’
and in a good many more passages it seems that his interpretation is some-
what strained. On the whole it seems probable that the translators of
the LXX knew that ger did not always mean ‘ convert,’ and sometimes
—when they were specially careful—used répo.xos to render it, but it
had already acquired its later meaning for which Greek-speaking Jews
used zpoo7Avtos, so that the tendency of the translators was regularly to
use 7poo7j)AvuTos to render ger, and to do so too often.
In any case it is certain that ger changed its meaning. It began
by meaning ‘foreigner’ and ended by meaning ‘convert.’ Similarly ©
mpoohAvtos probably once meant ‘foreigner’ and afterwards ‘convert.’
The evolution of the two words is exactly the same. The only doubtful
point is the date at which the change was made; but at any rate it was
before the Christian era.
(ii.) PoBovpevor tov Oedv and cveBdpuevor tov Oedv.—A somewhat
similar situation arises with regard to the phrase doBovpevo. rdv Oedv or
ocBopevor Tov Oedv. This has been the centre of a long and complicated
discussion 1 of which the outcome is not clear as yet and perhaps never
will be.
The point at issue is to what extent PoBovpevor Tov Oedv is a technical
description of the non-Jewish fringe attending the Synagogue, or is merely
an honourable epithet applicable to Jew,. Gentile, or Proselyte, as the
context may decide.
1 See especially E. Schiirer, GJV. iii.4 p. 174, note 70, and Strack, ii.
pp. 716 ff.
vit PROSELYTES AND GOD-FEARERS 85
The LXX.—The phrase oPovpevos or ve Bdpevos Tov Ocdv is the usual LXXx.
rendering of jere adonai, which, as shown above (p. 82), is a common de-
scription of good Israelites. But since the practically identical phrase jere
shamaim was used in the Rabbinical literature to describe the ‘ pious
Gentiles ’ who came to the Synagogue, it is obviously possible that the same
meaning may have been earlier attached both to jere adonai and to its Greek
equivalent. Many scholars are quite certain that this is so, and, by inter-
preting poBovpevor tov Gedv whenever it occurs in the Psalms or elsewhere
as a reference to the pious Gentiles, obtain much information as to the
presence of a large class of this kind, not only in the Synagogues of the
Diaspora but also in the Temple at Jerusalem. It is possible that there was
such a class ; but this cannot be proved by reading a special meaning into
poBovpmevos Tdv Oedv and then treating that meaning as evidence.
Josephus.—Use has been made in this connexion of contra Apion. Josephus.
ii. 10 and ii. 39, but nevertheless these two passages, though they indicate
the growth of proselytism among the Jews, do not make use of the phrase
in question, and the only important one is Antig. xiv. 7. 2 Oavydaoryn Se
pndeis, et TorodTos Hv TAOVTOS Ev TH yueTepy lepG TavTwY TOV KaTa THY
oikoupévnv lovoatwv kat oeBopévwv tov Oedv, ere 8& Kal trav dd THs
*Acias Kai ths Kipdays cis aitd cuppepdvTwv éx ToAAGY rdévU Xpdvev.
But unfortunately the technical meaning which has been seen in this
passage is based on a wrong translation. Jacob Bernays, followed by Emil
Schiirer, says that Josephus appeals not only to the rich offerings of Jews
throughout the world but also to those of the God-fearers, but the Greek
surely makes it plain that ceBouéevwv tdv Gedy is a further description
of those who are called “Iovéaiwy, and xai connects it with xara tiv
oikovpévnv, so that the meaning of the whole phrase is ‘all the Jews
worshipping God throughout the world.’ Bernays’ interpretation would
require a Tov before ceBopevwv. It is of course true that Josephus
cannot be trusted to be conventional on small points of Greek grammar,
but in this case the supposition that he is observing its rules gives a
perfectly good sense. He is not distinguishing between Jews and God-
fearers any more than he is distinguishing between tov Kata tiv
oikovpévnv and those from Asia and Europe.
In Acts.—The following passages contain the phrases under discussion : Acts.
(a) x. 1pf. avip 5€ Tis €v Kawapeig ovdpare KopvijAwos, €kaTOV-
TapXNS €k oreipas Tis kaAoupevns *"IraXixns, edoeBis Kat poBodvevos
Tov Gedy ody Tayri TQ otkw avro.
(b) x. 22 dvnp Sixaos kal poBovpevos rdv Oedv.
(c) x. 35 GAN év ravri €Ovee 6 poBodpevos avrdv Kal epyafdpuevos
Sixatorivnv Sexrds ado eoriv.
(d) xiii. 16 avdpes “IopanAcirat Kat of oPotpevor. tdv Oedv,
aKovoare.
(e) xiii. 26 dvdpes adedcpoi, viol yévous “ABpadp, ot év tiv poBov-
pevor Tov Gedy, Huiv 6 Adyos Tis cwTnpias tabrns efareoTaAn.
(f) xiii. 43 Avdeions S& THs cvvaywy7s nKoobInrav moAXol tev
‘lovdaiwy kat tév ceBopevwv tpoondrAtTov TH LatAm cal tH BapvaBg,
God-fearers,
or God-
fearing.
86 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY _ xorn
oitwes mporAaXotytes avrois ereMov aitods mpocpévery TH Xa puTe
Tov Oeod.
(9) xiii. 50 of 5€ *Iovdator rapwtpuvav tas oeBopévas yuvaikas Tas
evoxjpovas Kal Tovs mpwTous THS TéAEwS Kal Eriyerpav Swwypodv emt
tov IlatAov kat BapvaBav, cai €€éBadov adbrodvs dard Tov dpiwv.
(h) xvi. 14 Kai tis yuvt) dvépare Aviia, roppupdrwdis moAews
Ovareipwv ceBopévyn Tdv Oedv, HKover.
(t) xvii. 4 kal twes e€ avtav ereicOnocav Kat mporexAnpwOnoav
Tt) IlatAm kat Leila, tov re ceBopevwv “EAAjvov wAHOos woAd
yvvatkav Te TOV TPdTwV OvK dALyaL.
(k) xvii. 17 SveAeyero pev odv év TH Tvvaywyy Tots *lovdaious Kat
tois weBopévors Kal év TH Gyopa Kata Tacav Hyépav mpds Tors
Tapatvy XavovTas.
(1) xviii. 7 kat peraBas exeiOev HrAOev eis oikiav Tivds dvdpare
Tiriov lovtarov oeBopévov tdv Oedv.
It is strange that poBovpevor tov Oedv is characteristic of the first
half of Acts, and o<Bopevor (Tov Oedv) of the second. Is this connected
with the sources of Acts? (See H. J. Cadbury, Making of Lwuke-Acts,
p. 225, for other possibilities.)
On the basis of these passages the theory has been erected that in Acts
poBovpevos Tov Oedv should be translated ‘ God-fearer,’ as though it meant
that the person so described belonged to a recognized separate class in the
Synagogue. It has been a serious question whether to adopt this in the
translation in Vol. IV., but in the end I decided not to do so, because it
seems to me that though in some cases an excellent meaning is obtained in
this way, in others it probably reads into the text more than the writer
intended. That Gentiles came to the Synagogues is undoubted, and that
they were called ‘ God-fearing’ persons is natural, but they were not a
‘clearly defined group parallel to Jews and proselytes.
The first of the two strongest instances in support of the theory men-
tioned is the group of passages in chapter x. referring to Cornelius, who was
certainly neither a Jew nor a proselyte but is described as oBovpevos Tov
Ocdv. Does this mean that he belonged to a special class of persons who
are designated as God-fearers, or merely that he was a pious man who
worshipped the true God? Similarly, in chapter xiii. the phrase ‘Men of
Israel and those who fear God’ may mean Israelites and non-Israelites who
fear God, but the passage gives almost as good a sense and is quite as
accurately rendered if Israelites and God-fearers be regarded as two adjec-
tives applied to the same persons. The scene is the synagogue in Pisidian
Antioch. Paul is speaking at the request of the rulers of the synagogue, and
the introductory phrase may well be merely a reference to the Jews and
proselytes who are present. It should be noted in passing that a proselyte
is in Jewish thought quite as much an Israelite as a born Jew. Verse 26
is a somewhat stronger example: ‘“‘ Men and brethren, sons of the race of
Abraham, and those among you who fear God.” It is obviously possible
that ‘those who fear God’ are treated as part of those of the race of
Abraham—* and I appeal especially to those among you who are most
interested in religion.” But the ‘among you’ rather suggests that ‘ those
va § §PROSELYTES AND GOD-FEARERS — 87
who fear God ’ is contrasted with the sons of Abraham—‘ you’ is the whole
congregation, ‘sons of Abraham’ are the Jews, ‘ those who fear God’ are
Greeks who worship in the Synagogue but are not proselytes. The prob-
ability seems on this side, but the passage is not enough to prove that
poBovpevor tdv Oedv would have meant this if the context had not
suggested it.
The same applies to xvi. 14 Kai tis yuv7) dvépate Avdia, roppupdrwdts
moXews Ovateipwv ceBopevn Tdv Oedv, }Kovev, which would naturally be
rendered ‘‘ a certain woman named Lydia, a purple-seller of the city of
Thyatira, attending the service, listened.” oePopévy Tov Gedv is a perfectly
natural phrase to describe Lydia’s presence in the synagogue, or tpowevyx7,
though of course if it were proved that it was the name of a special class it
could be interpreted in that way. In the same way in xvii. 4 obviously
tov ceBopevov ‘EXXAjvwv can quite naturally be rendered ‘ the Greeks who
were worshipping.’ It is of course quite possible, and indeed probable, that
the word ‘ Greeks’ implies the presence of those who were neither Jews nor
proselytes but taking part in the worship of the synagogue. But the point
is that it is quite unnecessary to regard o¢@dpevor as a technical term for
this class. xvii. 17 is a stronger example, and in any case illustrates how
easily oi oeBdouevor might have become technical. The phrase might be
rendered ‘ he argued in the synagogue with the Jews and the worshippers,’
and by implication some at least of the worshippers were not Jews; but
it is clear that this meaning is given to of weSdpevou by the context.
It may be illustrated by asking a question. Supposing that the Greek ran
Suehéyero ev TH cvvaywyy Tots ceBopévors, should we be justified in
saying that Tots ceBopevors is a technical term for non-Jewish worshippers,
or could we translate ‘ he argued with the worshippers,’ without differen-
tiating between Jews and Greeks ? Formerly I thought that the first view
was right, but I now incline to the second.
Finally, xviii. 7 gives the other piece of evidence for the technical
use of the phrase, comparable in force to those in the story of the centurion
Cornelius. Justus is referred to as oeGdpuevos tov Oedv, which seems to
mean an attendant at the synagogue. If this is not a technical use
implying that he is neither a heathen nor a proselyte, it comes very
near it. The question is not so much what the phrase actually means in
this context as what it might have meant in a different one. Could Luke
have referred to Jews frequenting the synagogue at Corinth as veBdpevor
tov Oedv? Or had the phrase become so stereotyped that it could only
be used of non-Jewish worshippers ? I cannot see that there is sufficient
evidence in Acts itself to justify a confident answer to the question. It
should be remembered that the question affects the use of words rather than
the facts of history. There is no reason whatever to doubt that there were
non-Jews who went to the synagogue. It is so intrinsically probable that
the onus probandi would be on those who maintained the opposite. The
question is merely whether fPoBovpevos Tov Oedv and ceBdopevos Tov Oedv
were technical terms to describe this class and whether it had a recog-
nized status in Judaism. In favour of such a theory is the fact that the
words are applied at least most often to this class in Acts. Against it is
Conclusions
Bernays.
88 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
the fact that they are perfectly well-known Old Testament phrases which
do not bear any technical meaning.
These passages show that doPovpevor Tov Gedy and oeBopevor Tov Oedv
were used as appropriate phrases to describe those who though non-Jews
believed in the monotheistic God of the Jews and possibly attended the
synagogue. Such non-Jews are often spoken of by modern Jewish theo-
logians as ‘ the pious Gentiles,’ and it is held that they will inherit the Life
of the World to come though they will not share in the glories of the
Messianic time. But the reason why these words were used was because
they were appropriate to a vague class, not because they were the recog-
nized title limited to a specific group with a definite place in organized
Judaism. The epithets by themselves could have been given to a pious
Jew, and it is only when they are applied to a non-Jew that the context
gives them a peculiar meaning. It must always be a question whether
hoBeicGa. or céBerOar tov Gedv means that a Gentile was inclined to
accept Jewish theology or whether it should be translated more generally.
For instance, I think that in Acts xviii. 7 reBdpevos Tov Oedv is certainly in-
tended to imply that Justus was an attendant at the Synagogue, but that
in xvii. 4 Tov ceBopévwv “EAAjvwv means the Greeks who were actually
worshipping on the occasion when Paul was speaking in the Synagogue.
That oeBopevos need not always refer to a non-Jew is shown by
xiii. 48. The writer says Avfeions S€ THs TuVvaywyns HKoAobOnoav
ToAAol tov "loviaiwy Kat tov oeBopévwv rporndAtTwv 7H IlavrAw Kal
Tt) Bapvado. The phrase of o¢Bdpevor rpoojAvro has naturally been
a difficulty to those who regard oi o¢Gdevor as meaning a class who were
not proselytes, and it has been contended that proselytes is an inter-
polation, but in reality the difficulty is entirely due to following a fixed
idea rather than the meaning of the Greek, which is ‘ many of the Jews
and the proselytes who were worshipping.’ There is no suggestion that
the word has a technical sense.
(iii.) Evidence for the Existence of Syncretistic Cults on a Basis of Judaism
In a paper?! printed in a volume published in honour of Theodor
Mommsen’s 60th birthday in 1877, Jacob Bernays wrote an article on
‘Die Gottesfiirchtigen bei Juvenal’ (republished in Usener’s edition of
Gesammelte Abhandlungen von Jacob Bernays, vol. ii. pp. 71 ff.). In this
he began with a discussion of a famous passage in Juvenal xiv. 96 ff. :
quidam sortiti metuentem sabbatapatrem
nil praeter nubes et coeli numen adorant,
nec distare putant humana carne suillam
qua pater abstinuit ; mox et praeputia ponunt.
Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges
Iudaicum ediscunt et servant ac metuunt ius
tradidit arcano quodcumque volumine Moyses.
1 This paper might equally well have been dealt with in the last section, but
it is so closely connected with the further development of research in another
direction that the present arrangement seemed better.
edie PROSELYTES AND GOD-FEARERS 89
The general meaning is plain: the father observes the Sabbath and
abstains from pork, and does not otherwise observe the Law, but the son
becomes a full proselyte. Most commentators saw nothing more in the
passage, but Bernays fastened on a suggestion of John Selden (De ture
naturali et gentium, iii. c. 18, g. A) that metuentes means Judaizing Romans.
Of course it is clear that this is the meaning of the passage in Juvenal, but
Bernays amplified the suggestion that metuentem is an odd word to use with
sabbata in line 96 or with ius in line 101. He thinks that it must be used
technically and in the same way in which the rabbis used jere shamaim.
To support this conclusion he quoted the following inscription from CIL.
v. 1, no. 88, p. 18:
AVR. SOTER. ET AVR.
STEPHANUS * AVR.
SOTERIAE * MATRI - PIEN
TISSIMAE * RELIGIONI
IUDEICAE * METVENTI
7. 2
The translation of this is clearly ‘‘ Aurelius Soter and Aurelius Stephanus,
her sons, erected this to Aurelia Soteria their mother, a most pious fearer
of the Jewish religion.” Bernays thought it plain that Soteria was a
Jewess, and here he is doubtless right, but if so, metwens does not here
mean a half-proselyte.
In the Gesammelte Abhandlungen of Bernays, the editor, H. Usener, usener.
added another inscription from the Hphemeris Epigraphica, iv., 1881,
p. 291, no. 838:
AEMILIO - VA(L)
ENTI - EQ. RO
MANO METV(E)
NTI: Q. AN. XV
MES. Il - DIE XXII.
He thinks that metuenti must here also be taken as meaning a semi-
proselyte to Judaism, but adds that another inscription in the CJL. vi. 1,
no. 390, p. 73, domini metuens I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) libens) m(erito)
sacr(um), cannot be so explained. Twenty years later Emil Schiirer read Schiirer.
to the Berlin Academy (SAB., 1897, pp. 200 ff.) a paper entitled ‘Die Juden
im bosporanischen Reiche und die Genossenschaften der o¢eBopevor Oedv
tywortov ebendaselbst.? He accepted Bernays’ position, though Usener’s
additional evidence ought surely to have made him hesitate. How does he
know that Aemilius Valens was interested in Judaism ? Simply because he
is already convinced that metwens implies Judaism. It surely somewhat
resembles arguing in a circle. And so far from its being true that the
second inscription cannot be used, it is really an extremely important piece
of evidence which shows that metwens does not necessarily mean an ad-
herent or semi-adherent of the Jewish religion, which is completely ruled
out of court by the reference to Jupiter. The obvious meaning of the word
is ‘religious’ or ‘God-fearing’ in the sense in which that word might be used
of pious members of any religion. The same thing may be said of further
Latyschev’s
inscriptions.
90 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY nore
inscriptions which Schiirer quotes, namely—Larciae Quadrati[llae natione]
Romanae metue[nti] (CIL. vi. 29759); Dis Manib. Maianiae homerididae
(1. deum ?) maetuenti (CIL. vi. 29760) ; [De]um metuens (CJL. vi. 29763) ;
[fidel]is metu[ens] (CL. viii. 4321).
Tt is clear that there is nothing in these to prove that they refer to
the Jews exclusively, and the reference to Dis manibus indicates heathen
rather than Jewish divinities.1 The general impression formed on my
mind by going through the evidence and reading the inscriptions quoted
is that there is no reason whatever to think that metuentes means more
than ‘ religious.’ In this sense it is clearly used, but the specific religion
must in each case be determined from the context. In the first inscrip-
tion which Bernays quotes, it obviously is Jewish. In the one which
refers to Iupiter Optimus Maximus it clearly is not. In all the other
cases the context is ambiguous and the person referred to may be either
Jew or Gentile. :
Schiirer then discussed the inscriptions from the kingdom of Bosporu
north of the Black Sea which had been published by Latyschev in
Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini graecae et latinae,
vol. ii. (Inscriptiones regni Bosporant), Petropoli, 1890. These inscriptions
are so important, and owing to their connexion at the beginning of Schiirer’s
article with the ocBdpevo. of Acts have so often been interpreted in a
manner which goes beyond what Schiirer himself says, that it is desirable
to give their texts in full, especially since neither the Proceedings of the
Berlin Academy nor Latyschev’s Inscriptiones are easily accessible, except
in large libraries.
(i.) [Latyschev, vol. ii. no. 52 (=CIG. vol. ii. p. 1005, Addenda no.
2114”), from Pantikapaeum, dated a.p. 81.]
Bactrebovros Baothéws Ti Be-
plov lovXiov “PyoKovrdpidos duXo-
kaivapos Kal piropwpaiov, evore-
Bots, érous for’ pnvds Hepes ri]-
ov 18’ Xpyori yvviy tpdre-
pov Apotcou ddeinus ext ris [xpo]-
cevx ns Opertov pov “HpaxAav
eAedepov xabdragé Kara edx7[v]
pov averiAnrrov Kal dra p}evd-
XAnrov ard ravrds KAnpovopl ov]
Fe lptaiernas avrov drov av Bov-
1 Though there is some evidence for the use of Dis Manibus or D.M.S. in
Jewish and Christian inscriptions (cf. CJL. vi. 29760, viii. 7530). But this is
part of the later survival of heathen language (cf. Deo Optimo Maximo).
Would it have been customary in the first century ?
vo PROSELYTES AND GOD-FEARERS
Anrlae dverikwAtrws Kabas e[d]-
Edunv, xwpts is z[)]v rpolo lev-
X7V Owreias Te Kal tpockal pre]-
|p]joew[s], cvvervvevodvtwv dé
kal TOV xAnpvdpeov pov “Hpa-
kXei[So]u kat “EAtkwviddos,
ovve| rit |poreotons dé kai T7[s]
cuwaywy7|[s] tov “lovdaiwr.
91
(ii.) [Latyschev, vol. ii. n. 53 (=Corp. Inser. Graec. vol. ii., Addenda
no. 2114°), from Pantikapaeum.]
[xepis]
[eis THVv| TpooevyxX7V Owrrei| a]s [Te kat 7 poo- |
[apt lepjoeos ovv[e|rurpore[ vovons |
[S€ xa]i ths cvvaywy[js] TO[v]
*Tovdai [wv].
(iii.) [Latyschev, vol. ii. no. 400, from Gorgippia (the present Anapa),
dated a.p. 41.]
Ged tWictw. TavTo-
Kpatopt ebdoynt@, Ba-
otAevovtos BactXeé-
ws [IloA€pwvos] frdo-
yeppalvi|cov Kat prrordar-
pioos, érovs HAT’, pn-
vos Aeiov, 1600s =r-
[pd]rwvos avéOnkev
THe [wpoo jevxHe Kar’ edx[7)]-
v Oplerriy éavrod 7 dvo-
pa X[plica, ef @ 7 avera-
gos kal dvernpéac ros]
amd mavtds KAnpov| 6p. |-
ov bd Ata, I'jv, “HAvo[r].
(iv.) [Latyschev, vol. ii. no. 401, from Gorgippia (Anapa).]
[Geo wh ]io[ rp rav]-
[roxpét opt eddAo[ yy ]-
92 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
[r]o° BarsAcbovr[os]
Bactréws TiBepiov Te
ovAiov edt LYavpopa-
Tov, pirokaioapos kal du-
Acpwpaior, cio Boids,
Teepdbeos Nupa-
yépov Maxapiov abv
adeApis "HAsos yv-
vatkds NavoBada-
pdbpov Kara edxiVv
tatpos nuav Nup-.
daydpov Maxapiov
deiopev TV Oper-
[rHv jpov Alwpéav
[The rest is lacking.]
(v.) [Latyschev, vol. ii. no. 449, from Tanais.]
Ged. [dpiorwr]
BacrAebovros BlacAéws TiBepiov]
*Iovdtov ‘Pyokovrd[pidos fidoKat]-
gapos kat prropwp[aiov, edaeBors],
iorowuntot ddeAo[t ceBdpuevor]
[O<d]v turrov av[éornoay tov]
teAapova evy[pdavres Eavtav]
Td, Ovouara.
An illegible list of names follows.
(vi.) [Latyschev, vol. ii. no. 452, from Tanais, dated a.p. 228.]
[Ayah |e TOXN
Og SWiory Ax
BaorAedbovr[os] Baorr€ ws TiBepiov]
[TJovAiov [Ké]rvos giAoKalirapos] Kat du-
[Acpwpaio}v evoe Bods, eiorountot
ad[eApot cleBdpuevor Oedv troy,
vit PROSELYTES AND GOD-FEARERS 93
éevyp[ dav jes eavTOv [r]a dvopara
[wlept mpeoBirepov M[....... | ‘H-
pax[AeiSJov «at “Apiorwva [M]everrpdrov xai KaAdi-
yléevn]v Mu[pwlvos, "ArAcEiwva Tlarpéxdov, Eiruxeavds.
[A list of names follows; at the end is the date.]
Ev t@ ex’ Ever, Topriaiov a.
These inscriptions prove several things :
(i.) That in the kingdom of Bosporus the custom of manumitting a Conclusions.
slave by handing him over to a temple had been extended to the Jewish
synagogue just as it was transferred later on to the church. (See especially
Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den Gstlichen Provinzen des rémischen
Kaiserreichs, pp. 374 ff.)
(ii.) The phrase Geds tyucros was commonly used in this country, but
the association of the word in the sentence in the third inscription with
Zeus, Ge, and Helios shows that the phrase was not used exclusively by
Jews. This of course was at once seen by Schiirer, and he therefore made
the suggestion that in the kingdom of Bosporus there was a syncretistic
cult of the Most High God which had been produced by the influence of
Jewish missionaries. The population had accepted part of their preaching
but not all of it, and produced a sect which was neither completely
Jewish nor completely heathen.
(iii.) The word oe@devor is used in connexion with the title «ds
tyros to describe the worshippers in this cult.
Rather unfortunately, however, Schiirer went on to connect o<¢Bopevos
in these passages with the oeGdpevos in the Jewish Synagogues referred to
in Acts. Of course the verb is the same in both places and means ‘ worship,’
but that does not justify the assumption that the persons referred to were
worshipping in the same way. Nor does the fact that this sect in Bosporus
had originally been inspired by the teaching of the Synagogue prove that
they had necessarily continued to be on good terms with the Jews who
had first taught them. The history of Christianity is a proof to the
contrary.
After Schiirer’s article, but during the same year, F. Cumont published Cumont.
in the Supplément @ la Revue de l Instruction publique en Belgique, 1897, an
illuminating article on ‘Hypsistos’ which was also issued separately. It is
very hard to obtain, but the contents are given in the article on ‘ Hypsistos’
in Pauly-Wissowa. This article brings together the chief evidence for the
use of 6 tiers as the Greek name of Jahweh, not only by Jews themselves,
but also by Gentiles who worshipped him but did not accept Judaism.
In classical Greek tyros is one of the less frequent epithets of Zeus, éy.oros.
but in the Semitic world it was used to render the name of the God Eliun,
yby, well known in the Old Testament as the God of Melchizedek (God
Most High). He was the God of the vault of heaven, whose relation in
Phoenician mythology to Baal Shammim—the Balsamem of Plautus (Poen.
1027)—is not quite clear. Eliun survived in Judaism as a title for his
The bearing
of these
inscriptions
on Acts,
94 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
former rival Jahweh,? and later on, in non-Israelite Semitic theology, under
the influence of. astrology and Mazdaism he became the Supreme God, who
lives in the highest sphere of heaven, whence he governs the stars, and
through them rules the events of earth. In Greek he was called 6 tyros.
Among the Jews of the Diaspora 6 tyurros became afavourite method of
referring to Jahweh, and was used by Gentiles in speaking of the God of the
Jews (cf. Philo, Leg. ad Gaium, 23, 40, M. ii. p. 569, 592, and In Flaccum 7,
M. ii. p. 524). It was so used by Celsus, and when Julian in the fourth
century gave the Jews permission to build a temple in Jerusalem, he spoke
of it as for Tov bYuorrov. (See also above, p. 193.)
Thus two streams of religious thought tended to use the name 6 dyueros
to describe a monotheistic God—Judaism, and a Semitic variant of the
current astralism. These two might easily be confused in popular thought.
Similarly this ‘ highest God’ might easily be identified with the chief god
of any locality. Thus it is not surprising that in Palmyra there are many
inscriptions to Zeus byuoros, wéyirtos Kal érjKkoos—a formula which finds
an echo in Semitic inscriptions as ““ The God whose name be praised for
ever, the Good, the Compassionate,” and still lives on in the formula of
Islam. dtiuwros is also found in Syria to denote Attis.
In the mixed theology of these monotheistic cults the supreme God,
6 byworos Oeéds, is dyévnros, he is the Creator and Governor of the Universe,
but he has many ministers of his power, the Sun, Mithras, and a host of
angels, and Hermes conducts to him the souls of the pure (Diogenes
Laertius viii. 1. 31).
The Bosporus inscriptions clearly represent a cult of this nature—that
much is demonstrated by Schiirer and Cumont. The references to Jews
and to a zpoaevx7 show that Judaism was a strong element, and the
tyros Geds so often mentioned is doubtless Jahweh. But the mention of
Zeus, Ge, and Helios shows that it was not a purely Jewish Synagogue.
Moreover, it does not necessarily follow that all these inscriptions should be
grouped together. The first two, which refer to a cvvaywy/ of the Jews,
but not to the Jeds tWioros, may well belong to a purely Jewish Synagogue,
the third clearly belongs to a syncretistic cult; and as this inscription is the
first to speak of the Oeds yuwrros there is a presumption that inscriptions
v. and vi., which do the same, belong to the same cult.
But what is the bearing of this on the meaning of o¢Beo@ai in Acts ?
In the inscriptions o¢Sdpevos is used in Nos. v. and vi. (the reconstruction of
v. is rendered certain by vi.), but it is not a technical term for a Gentile who
was attending a Jewish Synagogue and thinking seriously about becoming
a proselyte, nor does it in the least suggest the tendency, which Juvenal de-
plores, for Romans to become strict members of the Synagogue. I imagine
that ciorountot ddeAot re Bdpevor Oedv tivorov means ‘initiated brethren,
worshippers of God Most High.’ There is nothing technical here about
1 The Maccabees, perhaps taking the title from Melchizedek, call themselves
on their coins ‘ priests of God most high,’ and R. H. Charles thinks that ‘ most
high God’ became a popular usage in the second century B.c. among the
admirers of the Maccabees (cf. Jubilees) and was avoided by their ss ate
(cf. Enoch 37-70 and Pss. Solom.).
- VIL PROSELYTES AND GOD-FEARERS 95
oéBer Gat, and even if the inscription had referred to a real Synagogue, all
that could have been said is that eio7ounroi means ‘ proselytes,’ and a
proselyte was by definition not a Gentile still thinking about proselytism.
In this case, too, c¢BerOat cannot be a technical term.
The most important contribution of these inscriptions and of Cumont’s Acts xvi. 17.
work for the understanding of Acts is really in another direction. In Acts
xvi. 17 the slave who had a ‘ python-spirit’ said that the Apostles were
the servants of the Geds iyioros. Does that mean the God of the Jews, or
is it not more likely that it refers to the Geds tyioros of a syncretistic cult?
It would be a very natural conclusion for anyone who recognized that the
Apostles were preaching the God of the Jews and the morality of the Jews
but not the Jewish Law or customs.
The survival of these syncretistic cults having their origin in Gentile Survivals of
attendants at the Synagogue can be traced down to the fifth century. adie:
Gregory Nazianzenus? and Gregory of Nyssa* both refer to worshippers
of Hypsistos, though one (the Nazianzene) calls them tyurdpror and the
other vyrrvavo’. They recognized only one God, rejected images and
sacrifices, but revered Fire and Light; refused circumcision, but observed
the Sabbath and part of the food-law.
Similarly Cyril of Alexandria‘ speaks of a similar sect in Egypt called
OeooeBeis, and finally the Codex Theodosianus * mentions the suppression
of a cult of Coelicolae in Africa in A.D.408-409. Theodosius merely knew that
they ought to be suppressed, qui nescio cuius dogmatis novi conventus habent,
but they may have been an old sect similar to the Hypsistarii of Cappadocia.
Schiirer, Cumont, and Kriiger take this view. But it seems doubtful to me,
for Augustine in Lpist. 44 (al. 163). 13, says Miseramus ad maiorem Coelt-
colarum quem audieramus novi apud eos baptismi institutorem exstitisse et
multos illo sacrilegio seduxisse,etc. This at least suggests that their baptism
was a new thing, though Augustine does not say that the sect was. After
all, no century is immune from new cults.
The Coelicolae are peculiarly interesting to the textual critic because in
two places (Acts xiii. 50 and xvii. 4) Codex Bezae renders o«Bdpevos by
caelicolae. Is this a hint of the African affinities of the Latin of this manu-
script? It seems an interesting indication of judgement on the part of the
translator as to the meaning of o«(dpevos, and the nature of the caelicolae.
Whether the Massaliani of Epiphanius ° is another example of the same
kind is more doubtful.
1 A similar cult with another name has been pointed out by Cumont in his \
‘Les Mystéres de Sabazius et le Judaisme’ in Comptes Rendus of the Académie
des Inscriptions, 1906, pp. 63 ff., and ‘A propos de Sabazius et du Judaisme
in the Musée Belge, xiv. (1910) pp. 56 ff. He shows that there was a @lacos
ceBac.avéds which was a combination of the Thracian cult of Sebazios with
that of Jahweh Sabaoth.
2 Or. xviii. 5; P.G. xxxv. 990 ff.
3 Contra Eunomium, ii.; P.G. xlv. 484.
* De adoratione in spiritu et veritate, iii.; P.G. Ixviii. 282.
5 xvi. 5. 43 (408) and xvi. 8. 19 (409).
8 Haer. xxx. 2.
Conclusions.
The evolu-
tion of the
meaning of
Spirit.
The O.T.
96 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
The results of this investigation may be summarized thus:
(i.) In the Diaspora there was a rather wide circle of Gentiles who were
interested in the teaching and practice of the Synagogue. To distinguish
them from other Gentiles they were called “‘ (the Gentiles) who fear or wor-
ship God.” But ‘those who fear God’ was not a title exclusively appro-
priated to this type of Gentile. It could also have been used of pious
Israelites, and ‘ those who worship’ (of o¢Bdpuevor), while an appropriate
description for these Gentiles, could also be used in a perfectly simple sense
of anyone, Jew or Gentile, who was in point of fact worshipping in the
Synagogue.
(ii.) These Gentiles tended to go in one of three ways:
(a) Some of them became proselytes and were absorbed into the
Synagogue.
(b) Some of them developed an eclectic monotheism of their own.
A common form of this was called the worship of the ‘ Most
High’ (6 tyros Oeds). Some of them, at least, took over
many Jewish customs, but rejected circumcision. Com- -
munities of this kind survived until the fifth century.
(c) Some of them became Christians.
Nore IX. Tua Hoty Spreir
By Krrsopr Lake
A necessary preliminary to any discussion of the meaning of the Holy
Spirit in Acts is a brief statement of the evolution of thought by which
‘Spirit’ reached the meaning which it had at the time that Acts was
written. It is clearly impossible to treat this question fully in this place.
To do so would require a volume. On the other hand it seems undesirable
to leave the matter wholly undiscussed in this note. The subject at first
sight obviously falls into two divisions—Jewish and Greek—and each of
these into the two subdivisions of educated and uneducated thought. But
speaking generally the extremes meet. The most educated Jewish thought
is much nearer educated Greek thought than it is to uneducated thought
in its own nation, and there is a noticeable similarity between uneducated
Jewish and uneducated Greek thought ; so that it is impossible to organize
any statement so as to fall within these divisions without suggesting a
sharpness of distinction which the facts do not justify.
The Spirit in the Old Testament.—The Hebrew word most generally
rendered by wvetywa in the LXX is ‘ruach’ (nm). Another word is
‘“neshama’ (nw), but even if this were not originally a synonym for
‘ruach’ it must have been so for the makers of the LXX, and it is to be
remembered that to the student of the New Testament it is rvedya in the
LXX, not ‘ruach’ in the Hebrew, which is important.
‘Ruach’ is primarily ‘ breath.’ The opposite to it is ‘flesh.’ Spirit and
flesh are both related to life, but in different ways. ‘Flesh’ is alive, but
Ix THE HOLY SPIRIT 97
not of itself. Its life is given to it by ‘ Spirit,’ which is (worovotv. A corpse
has Flesh, but not Spirit; therefore it is dead, not alive. On the other
hand there are beings which are alive, but have only Spirit without Flesh.
Such are angels and demons. And to those who, like the Israelites, thought
of the gods as essentially anthropomorphic, it was naturally obvious that
a god had ‘ruach’ or breath.
The origin of Spirit or Breath in men and animals is not often discussed
in the Old Testament. But the one outstanding exception to this rule is
important in the history of both Jewish and Christian thought. In the
portions of Genesis ascribed by critics to J, the Breath of the Lord is the
special source of human life. ‘“‘ The Lord God formed man of the dust of
the ground and évedionoev cis TO mpdcwrov aitovd mvonv (wis, Kal
eyéveTo 6 avOpwros eis Yuyx7v (@cav” (Gen. ii. 7). Thus human life is
akin to divine life; both God and man have the same ‘ breath.’ The
comment of Philo (see pp. 100 f.) is proof that to Hellenistic Jews rvo7jv was
synonymous with rvevpa.
The Spirit or the Breath of God was regarded in ancient times as the
instrument by which God worked. Through it God influenced and con-
trolled the heroic figures of the Old Testament. It was, for instance, when
the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah that he attacked the children
of Ammon (Judges xi. 29), and it was when the Spirit of the Lord came
upon Samson that he slew a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass
(Judges xv. 14 ff.).
The Judges.
An alternative figure was to speak of the ‘Arm of the Lord.’ But The Arm of
whereas ‘ Arm of the Lord’ is only rarely distinguished from the Lord ‘® 4°"
himself (see, however, Is. lxiii. 5), the ‘ Spirit of the Lord’ was frequently
distinguished so completely from God that it was almost if not quite
regarded as an angelic being. In this respect it is interesting to note that
the reverse process can be seen in the history of the phrase ‘ Angel of the
Lord.’ Originally the Angel of the Lord was doubtless a celestial messenger,
distinct from Jahveh, but later on, perhaps under the influence of mono-
theistic thought and of the dislike of the direct mention of God, ‘ the
Angel of the Lord’ was used as a synonym for God himself (see Judges
vi. 11 ff.).
But the age of the Judges or Heroes belonged to a distant past. In Prophets.
later times the Spirit of the Lord worked through Prophets rather than
through Judges, and the prophetic gift was so closely identified with the
Spirit that it overshadowed everything else. It was during this period,
represented by the historical books, that the personification of ‘ Spirit,’
mentioned above, was at its height. The classical example of this anthro-
pomorphic visualization is 1 Kings xxii. 5 ff., in which the prophets speak
before Ahab and Jehoshaphat, and Micaiah explains that it is due to the
influence of a Spirit sent by the Lord to deceive the prophets. Inasmuch
as the Spirit in question is represented as discussing with God the way in
which he can deceive Ahab, it is clear that Spirit is here almost equivalent
to an angel. Nevertheless the change is not complete, for the lying
Spirit is regarded as inspiring all the prophets simultaneously, not merely
speaking to them.
VOL. V i
98 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
a ee It should be noted that in the Old Testament the phrase ‘ Holy
dey Spirit’ is veryrare. It is found only in Psalm li. 11; Is. lxiii. 10 f. ; Sirach
xlviii. 12 (in Cod. A); Susanna 45 (Theod.); Wisdom i. 5, ix. 17. It is
_somewhat more frequent in the pseudepigraphic literature, for instance
Jubilees i. 21 and i. 23, xxv. 14; and in the Ascension of Isaiah v. 14.
This, however, is a relatively unimportant point. The fact that the Old
Testament speaks of the Spirit of God while the New Testament and the
later literature use another phrase does not reflect change in doctrine, but
merely illustrates the tendency to avoid using the word God.
Moreover, in the rather vague metaphysics of the Old Testament it is
difficult to draw any sharp line between angels and such phrases as a
‘Spirit of jealousy’ or a ‘ Spirit of wisdom.’ Did the writers of the Old
Testament regard a ‘ Spirit of jealousy’ as a ‘demon,’ or were they con-
sciously personifying an abstract quality of disposition? This question
has often been raised and answered, but never satisfactorily, for—as Con-
stantine said of another controversy—the discussion depends on improper
answers to questions which ought never to have been put. That generation
did not distinguish clearly between persons and personifications, and to
introduce distinctions which were not perceived is as bad exegesis as to
leave them out when they were.
Judaism. Jewish Thought.—In the period beginning after the close of the Old
Testament, that is in the second century before Christ, the difference
between educated and uneducated thought becomes clearly marked. This
is not only because the influence of Greek thought affected the educated
so much more than the uneducated classes, but also because the written
sources at our disposal cover much more diverse types than are to be found
—at least in such extremes—in the Old Testament, Roughly speaking,
we have at our disposal for educated thought, though of very different types,
the Rabbinic literature, Josephus and Philo; and for uneducated thought,
the Apocalyptic literature and the Synoptic Gospels.
The Spirit In the centuries which elapsed between the period of the Exile and
and angels. ¢he Christian era, the requirements of monotheism modified the forms of
thought. To that generation an angel might be never so exalted, but it
was wholly distinct from God, and no part of God was actually an angel.
Thus a heavenly visitor who brought a message to men was an angel, and
the inspiration of a prophet was the ‘ Breath of God,’ yet the ‘ Breath of
God’ was not an angel. But during this period the prophets ceased to
exist. The communication of God with men was still carried on by his
Breath or Spirit, but through Scripture, through the learning of scholars,
and through the Voice from Heaven (Bat Qol), not through a ‘ Succession’
of inspired prophets. A further change in terminology can also be
noted. The phrase ‘Spirit of God’ or ‘Spirit of Jahveh’ became less
general, if not obsolete, and the Rabbis from the first century onwards
spoke of the ‘ Holy Spirit’ or ‘Spirit of holiness’ when they referred
to Scripture, and of the ‘Spirit of prophecy’ when they were alluding
to the prophets.
Inspiration The evidence of Rabbinical literature is generally clear, but not always.
eee | ie Spirit spoke through the Prophets, not through the Rabbis. It now
Ix THE HOLY SPIRIT 99
speaks only through the Scripture which is its written word. There are
indeed a few exceptions to this rule, and some Rabbis, notably Akiba,
are said to have received the Spirit. But against this view appears another
tradition which merely says that these Rabbis were worthy of the Spirit,
but their generation was not, so that they did not receive it. (See Strack,
i. pp. 216 and 557, and Biichsel, Der Geist Gottes, p. 124.) Jewish author-
ities are not clear which is the sounder view. Nor is there agreement
among scholars whether the ‘ laying on of hands’ at the ordination con-
veyed a ‘charisma’ of the Spirit, or merely recognized a function. The
most reliable information on the teaching of the Rabbis can be found
in Strack, ii. pp. 126 ff. and iv. pp. 435 ff. ‘‘ Die Inspiration der heiligen
Schrift,” and in Moore, Judaism, i. pp. 421 f.
The parallel of later Christianity is instructive. After the second
century the Church insisted as firmly as did the Rabbis that the prophetic
5.a50x7) was closed. But did it deny the presence of the Holy Spirit, or
disclaim infallibility ? The facts are much clearer than the logic.
With the Rabbinical literature Josephus may fairly be reckoned as re- Josephus.
presenting educated, though not theologically educated, opinion. Josephus
was an historian and a politician, not a philosopher or a theologian, and
his writings may be taken as typical of the views of an educated layman;
they ought not to be too closely compared or contrasted with the views of
the professional theologians reported in the Talmud.
His opinion about the Spirit world may be summed up thus: he be-
lieved that the world is full of invisible beings who like men are good and
bad. This is because they are the souls (yvyai) or spirits (tvevparta) of
dead men.1 The wicked become devils (dSa:pdvia); the good become
‘genii’ (Saiuwoves) or heroes (7jpwes).2 The ‘stuff,’ as it were, of which
these supernatural beings were made was the same that makes human
beings, and Josephus calls it mvevya and wvxi7, between which he
apparently made no clear distinction. It is essentially, or in its origin,
a part of God.®
He clearly agreed that the Prophets as a d:a50\7 had come to an end.
Nevertheless he regarded John Hyrcanus as a prophet (Antig. xiii. 10. 7
and B.J. i. 2. 8). He explains that Hyrcanus was visited by a Spirit.
(Sarpdviov), so that he knew all that was to happen (pndev TOv peAAdvTor |
dyvoeiv), and he describes this as tpodyteia. The darudvov is clearly
‘the Spirit,’ and Josephus is completely hypostatizing it—in fact, we may.
fairly say that he regards it as an angel. He also claimed to foretell to
Vespasian that he would be Emperor (B..J/. iii. 8. 3, 9, and iv. 10. 7).
The Wisdom Literature and Philo—The Rabbis and Josephus must The Wisdom
certainly be reckoned as educated opinion, but the Rabbis were not only "tt
not influenced by Greek thought, but were opposed to it. Josephus was
not so strongly opposed, but in theological matters he had learnt little
from the Greeks. The situation is different when examination is made of
the Wisdom literature, especially of course those parts which are only in
Greek, and of the writings of Philo, which are in so many ways the cul-
1 BJ. vii. 6. 3. 2 Bd. vie ls. 5s 3 BJ. iii. 8. 5.
Philo.
100 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
mination of the Wisdom literature. ‘The Spirit’ gradually merged more
and more completely in the concept of Wisdom. Wisdom, says Solomon, is a
pirdvOpwrov zrvevpa (i. 6), it makes men prophets,’ and gave Solomon all
his knowledge, which in Jewish thought was certainly due to the ‘ Holy
Spirit ’"—otherwise the writings of Solomon would not have been in the
Canon of Scripture. Elsewhere he slightly modifies his phraseology, and
speaks of Wisdom as possessing a . Spirit.’ “Oca TE OTL Kpurrd, he says
in vii. ut ff., Kal eppavi} éyvor, n yap TaVvTwV Texvires edidage pe
copia, ¢ €OTL yap év abtH iy hee VoEpov, dyvov, povoyeves a; . pba. be
otoa TAVTO Sivarat Kat bévovra €V avTH TA TAVTA awvifer, Kat
Kata yeveds eis Puxas éoias petaBaivoves pidovs Oeod Kat rpopiyras
KaTackevacet.
A similar view of Wisdom is found in Proverbs, and in Sirach in the
description of the learned scribe (xxxix.), where among the rewards to
those who spend their lives in the study of the Law of the Most High is
€av KUpios 6 péeyas OeAjon rvetpate cvvécews eprrAnoOjoerar. It is
therefore not peculiar to Greek as distinct from Hebrew writings.
Thus for these writers inspiration is ‘Wisdom.’ Moreover, the descrip-
tion of Wisdom (especially in Wisdom vii.) is strongly reminiscent of Stoic
philosophy. The Jewish writers tremble on the verge of identifying
Wisdom with the ethereal and penetrating—but still material—substance
which the Stoics called rvevua. (See below, p. 103.) It would probably
be a mistake to assume that these writers were students of Stoic philosophy
at first hand, but they lived in a world which was permeated by it, just
as the modern world is by evolutionary philosophy—even those who dis-
agree with it constantly use its language, though, on the other hand,
many who think they agree with it constantly abuse its terminology.
Probably it is not wrong to say that the concept of Wisdom as Spirit, as an
energizing substance, belongs to the Greek environment of the writers.
The apparent—and quite occasional—suggestions of an hypostatizing of
Wisdom or of the Spirit are largely only verbal, partly metaphorical, and
partly an inheritance from an earlier world which was far more anthro-
pomorphic, and thought of spirits—good or evil—as creatures rather
than substances.
To this class of Hellenistic Jews permeated with Stoic metaphysics
belonged Philo, though in his case there is also a strongly-marked Platonic
element. He explains ? that man is made up of earthly matter and divine
avevpa, The ‘Mind’ (d:dvore) is essentially a piece of the divine substance
—vetpa. Elsewhere* he explains that zvetua was one of the seven
entities of the first creation—the ‘ ideal’ world of Platonism—described in
Genesis i. The seven entities are Heaven, Earth, Space, Air, Water,
1 What is the relation between this identification of the Spirit of the
Prophets with Wisdom and its attribution to Solomon and the parallel story of
his power over demons in Josephus, Ant. viii. 2.5? Was there a conscious
effort on the part of the Wisdom literature to minimize the exorcistic power
of Solomon? Both elements—learning and exorcism—are combined in
Josephus’s account.
2 Opif. mundi, 134 f. 8 Ibid. 28 f.
—
Ix THE HOLY SPIRIT 101
avevpa, and Light. The wvevpa is ‘God’s’ Spirit, and is the source
of life.
The details of his doctrine of Spirit are complicated, difficult, and not
always clearly consistent, but their discussion would go beyond the present
purpose. For this it is sufficient to note that for Philo as for the Wisdom
literature zvetdya is the divine substance which energizes the universe.
The Apocalyptic Literature—For the development of uneducated fis Apo-
thought among the Jews, this is almost our only source: it may indeed be iis a
objected that it was not the work of uneducated writers, but ‘ uneducated ’
is a relative term, and means “ below the normal standard of education at
the time referred to,” judged by the opinion of that age, not by that of ours.
It is doubtful whether either the Rabbis or Philo would have regarded the
book of Enoch as the product of educated men, or Johanan ben Zakkai
would have accepted 4 Ezra. But in any case, whether the Apocalyptic
literature be educated or uneducated, it has a perfectly clear theory, accord-
ing to which evil spirits are the ghosts of the giants who were the offspring
of angels and women. They had been drowned in the Noachian flood, but
their spirits remained and endeavoured to return to the pleasures of flesh
and blood by obsessing some human being.?
It should be noted at this point that this general view of a world Mark.
infected by evil spirits is also that of the Synoptic gospels. In Mark
especially there is great emphasis on the power of Jesus, given also by him
to his disciples, to cast out demons. It is true that the origin of the demons
is not described, but no one who studies the parallels collected in the
introduction to R. H. Charles’s Book of Enoch can doubt that, at least so
far as demons are concerned, the ‘ Weltanschauung ’ of Mark is the same
as that of Enoch.
The Apocalyptic literature speaks frequently of ‘Spirits,’ and in Enoch.
Enoch God is especially the ‘ Lord of Spirits.’ If these spirits are not
angels, it is hard to say what they are. But the same book speaks con-
stantly of the ‘ Spirit of Righteousness,’ the ‘ Spirit of Wisdom,’ etc., and in
at least one place (lxii. 2) the Spirit of Righteousness inspires God himself.
Similarly the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs are full of ‘ Spirits’ both The ime
good and evil, and it is difficult to say whether they are Angels and Demons ="
or personified feelings. But it is hard not to think that both Enoch and
the writer of the Testaments lived in a world which was full of Spirits
and that they explained the facts of human nature, its passions, its
achievements, and its sins, as due to obsession. This is as typical of the
Apocalyptic literature as the identification of Spirit with divine substance
is of the Hellenistic literature. Just as the Wisdom literature is clearly
influenced by Greek thought, the Apocalyptic literature was influenced by
Persian.
There is unfortunately less in the Apocalyptic books or in the Synoptics Good and
about the spirits who were good than about those who were evil. But °V! SPiits.
1 Cf. Enoch xv. 1 ff., Jubil. x., and Justin Martyr 1 Apol.v. In Justin,
however, and in later writers, this view is eclipsed in importance by the
identification of the demons (or some of them) with the heathen gods and
heroes.
Angels and
demons.
102 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
a parallelism can be noted between their natures. At the baptism of
Jesus ‘the Spirit’ descends on him like a dove, and he hears a bat gol
announcing that he is God’s beloved son.1 Immediately after this the
Spirit drives Jesus into the desert, where he stays for forty days. When
he returns he manifests irresistible power over demons and explains in
Mark iii. 29 that he has this power through the Holy Spirit. As Gunkel
pointed out, it is of primary importance that the Rabbis of Galilee held that
he was a demoniac and that his family said that he was mad—which
amounts to the same thing. Jesus’ reply is not that he is a normal man,
but that he is obsessed—that is true—by the Holy Spirit, not by a demon.?
But there is relatively little about the Holy Spirit in Mark. The same is
true of Matthew. In Luke there are more references, but there is no
passage which really settles the central problem, namely—do the Synoptic
Gospels, and did the circle of Jewish thought which they represent, think
that there were many bad but only one good spirit, or did they think that
there were many of both, and that both obsessed mankind ?
If this question is confined to the actual fact of the existence or non-
existence of many good spirits, there can be but one answer. There were
many. The Apocalyptic literature and the Gospels have many references
to ‘ angels,’ and ‘ angels’ are good spirits just as ‘ demons’ are bad spirits.
But this simple answer is not enough. An ayyeAos is, of course, merely
a messenger. God and the Devil have each their own messengers. But by
custom dyyeAos was used for God’s messengers, and rvedpya axd0aprov or
Saipoviov was used for the Devil’s messengers. “Ayyeos became so far
limited that (except perhaps in Revelation) there was a sentiment against
using it of men, and dzécroXos was coined for the purpose (see Additional
Note 6). Perhaps evil spirits were so much more frequent and obvious than
good ones that if it were said that a man ‘had a spirit’ the natural
assumption was that he was obsessed by a demon, and this tended to
produce the Christian use of ‘ Holy ’ Spirit.
Moreover, though there are innumerable examples of men possessed by
evil spirits being described as ‘ demoniacs ’—daipovi(dpevo.—there is no
corresponding word based on 7vetvja to describe men possessed by good
spirits ; mvevpatiKos is the word which corresponds to Satpovifdpevor
in the Epistles, but TVEYPATLKOS is not found in the Synoptic Gospels, and
Saipovic Geis is not found in the Epistles.
These facts partly reflect peculiarities of language, but that is scarcely
the whole explanation. It would seem as though any demon might be
expected to obsess anyone whom he could, but that angels confined them-
selves to carrying out God’s commission to do or to say what he ordered.
The Spirit with which God obsessed prophets or others was not personified ;
1 Does ‘like a dove’ imply—as Luke carefully explains—that the Spirit
was actually in the form of a dove, or is it merely a metaphor? Cf. the
curious fact that according to the mss. when Polycarp died the Spirit was
seen to escape in the form of a dove: “Blood came out and a dove.” It is
unfortunate that in Lightfoot’s editio minor this is emended out by changing
mepiorepav to mepl oripaka.
2 Cf. Gunkel, Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes, p. 35.
ne
1x THE HOLY SPIRIT 103
if a definition had been given—but it was not—perhaps it would have been
said that the Spirit which (rather than ‘ whom’) God sent was that of which
angels consisted—they were rvevpata, but To mvedpua was not necessarily
an angel. Was Paul the first to go further and identify the Spirit with
the Lord ?
Greek Thought.—In the first century ‘ Spirit’ was the name given to Stoic ideas
the finest form of matter in the Stoic physical philosophy which was pre- °! SPitit-
dominant among educated men. The gods consisted of Spirit, and human
minds were thought to consist of the same material. Whether Spirit was
regarded as a fifth element or was a combination of fire and air is not
perfectly clear. Nor does the point matter much for the present purpose,
for it is tolerably clear that in the language of educated men who were
not professional philosophers Spirit was at least equivalent to a fifth
element, and was naturally destined to be the point of union between
pure Stoicism which recognized no reality that was not material, and
Platonism with its doctrine of immaterial reality.
Plutarch is probably our safest + guide in trying to form some idea of Plutarch.
educated opinion. He doubtless held to the metaphysical doctrines of
Plato, at least in part, but his ‘ physics’ were mainly Stoic, and his use of
mvevya belongs to his ‘ physics’ rather than his ‘ metaphysics.’ In this
respect he is an interesting parallel to Philo. For our purposes his exposi-
tion of inspiration, especially in his De Pythiae oraculis, De genio Socratis,
and De defectu oraculorum, is the most important evidence which we possess.
His theory is this. The soul of man is a Satudviov which has the extra-
ordinary power of remembering the past and foreseeing the future. But
it can foresee the future only when it can struggle free of the present by
Dreams or Ecstasy. He recognizes that Ecstasy is a physical condition,
and says that it is produced by mvetya which comes from the earth in
certain places. Is it the soul which foresees the future, or the tvevua? He
presents the parallel question—which gives sight, light or the eye? Just
as the eyes ‘see,’ but not unless ‘light’ is present, so the ‘ soul ’ foretells,
but only if rvetdya is present. The Spirit comes from the sun or from the
earth, and they are the true gods. The daizdéviea may take part in the
process of inspiration—that is Plutarch’s concession to orthodoxy—but
essentially inspiration is the natural effect of a natural substance of which
the name is rvetpa.
In uneducated Greek thought wvetua seems to mean especially Uneducated
‘ breath,’ and then by a natural extension of the term ‘ the principle which ack
makes things alive.’ In this respect it is almost the same as ‘ruach’ in
Semitic thought. In post-Christian times rvetj.a, especially in the chiral
means ‘daemons,’ good or bad, but there is not sufficient evidence that
this usage obtained in purely heathen circles in the first century. In
interpreting obscure allusions it is hard to avoid making them mean what
we believe they ought to mean.
Great importance would of course attach to the position of inspiration
1 All the better because, somewhat like Josephus, he was not a professional
philosopher.
104 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
Sacramental and to the use of the word zveija in the ‘mystery’ or ‘ sacramental’
cults and
the Spirit.
cults and in magical papyri if the facts were clear, but unfortunately only
very little can be stated. The ‘sacramental’ cults were acquainted with
the phenomenon of ecstasy. Plutarch, Apuleius, Euripides, and Livy leave
no doubt on that point. But where is the evidence that this ecstasy was
described as due to zvetya.? In some of the cults there were ‘ prophets,’
and Livy (xxxix. 8) speaks of the leader of the Dionysiacs in Italy as a
vates. But surely the popular theory was merely that the God spoke
through or to his representative who then became his tpofyjtryns. The
explanation that inspiration was due to 7vetya is later and due to more
or less sophisticated theories as to physical phenomena. Plutarch doubt-
less would have explained the facts in this way, but did the average initiate
or ordinary priest do so? There is no evidence that rvetua was used by
them for this purpose.
It is sometimes forgotten that the only sacramental religion of the
first three centuries of which we have anything approaching complete
knowledge is Christianity. Investigation into the other sacramental cults is
very unlikely seriously to change our interpretation of Christian documents.
If the context does not make the central ideas and the characteristic
phraseology intelligible, very rarely will the difficulty be cleared up by
the study of magical papyri or of other cults. The importance of such
study is in the main in another direction. It teaches us not what was, but
how little we know about what was the background against which we ought
to place our picture of Christianity.*
It is of course true that in such documents as the Paris and Berlin
magical papyri, and in the ‘ Mithras liturgy ’—which is now said to have
nothing to do with Mithras—there are many references to wvetya, and,
among other things, in connexion with ecstasy and the attainment of
immortality. But who knows what is the date of these documents ?
They may all be as late as the third century after Christ.
My own impression is that the early Christians—including the apostles
—explained the fact of the inspiration which they experienced as due to
the working of the Spirit, but did not define exactly what they meant.
That they should do so was the natural result of the fact that they were
Jews and used the terminology of the Old Testament. When they spoke
Greek, influenced by the LXX, they said that this was a ydpiopa of the
mvevpa and they claimed to be mvevpatixoi. Any educated or half-
educated Greek might naturally have interpreted this language in the -
light of Stoic phraseology. But the Epistles are rather to be interpreted
as in the main materials on which Greek thought worked than as the
results of Greek speculation.
1 The most interesting though not often the easiest treatment of the
subject is that of Reitzenstein’s Hellenistische Mysterienreligionen. He has
contributed enormously to our understanding, but probably has overstated the
case for the use of wveiua in the Graeco-oriental sacramental cults. As a
corrective to Reitzenstein, especially his later books, see the article by H. H.
Schaeder, ‘ Reitzenstein, die Vorgeschichte der oe Taufe’ in Gnomon
v-, 1929, pp. 353 ff.
1x THE HOLY SPIRIT 105
The whole matter can be seen most plainly if we do not try to read
into Acts or similar books of early Christian literature metaphysical
definitions of which the writers were probably quite unconscious. The
study of Plato, or even Philo, gives little help to understanding the con-
ception of the Spirit which dominated Acts, nor can more be found from
the study of Zeno or Cleanthes.
The New Testament.—The varying position given to the Spirit in The Spirit
different books of the New Testament is a reflection of the main question of Oe
New Testament exegesis, and this in turn reflects the chief problem of early
Christian history. It is extraordinarily important, and it is not difficult
to define.
The easiest and clearest method is to begin with the latest books of the The Johan-
New Testament—the Johannine. In these clear and indisputable expres- aueent
sion is given to the thesis which has ever since remained central in Catholic theory.
theology : ‘‘ Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the Kingdom of God.” + This is, of course, the foundation of
the Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Similarly, in the prologue
it is written that to as many as received the Adyos ‘ power’ was given to
‘become’ children of God—a view which is reflected in the Baptismal
Service by the statement that baptism gives those who are baptized a gift
which by nature they cannot have.?
This characteristically Johannine and Catholic doctrine calls for no long
discussion. Its existence is not open to argument.
If, however, we turn to the Synoptic gospels, there is no trace of this The _
doctrine. Not merely-is there no evidence, except Matt. xxviii. 19 (which Synoptic
very few students would accept as historical), that Jesus regarded baptism
1 John iii. 3 and 5.
2 The doctrine of the Spirit in the Johannine writings is in some ways parallel,
in others complementary, to those of Luke and Paul. The identification of
baptism with the gift of the Spirit and the necessity of both for immortality is
clearly expressed in Jo. iii. 5-6. The importance of inspiration by the Spirit
in Christian worship is sanctioned by Jesus’ declaration in Jo. iv. 24 that the
time has now come when the Father must be worshipped év rvedjmare kal ddnOeig.
The statement in the same verse, rvedua 6 Oeds, is probably the repetition of
a Stoic commonplace which beyond this appears to have exercised no consider-
able influence on the thought of the writer. With regard to receiving the Spirit,
John holds two mutually inconsistent views. One is similar to that of Luke’s,
that the Spirit is first given after the Resurrection (Jo. vii. 39), the other that it is
inherent in the teaching of Jesus and is assimilated in the acceptance of that
teaching (Jo. vi. 63). It is characteristic of the author’s somewhat cloudy
mysticism that he sees no inconsistency in maintaining that the Spirit is both
a present possession and a future acquirement (Jo. xiv. 17, 26). The latter view
is similar to that of Luke, and the scene in Jo. xx. 22-23 is parallel to that in
Luke xxiv. 49 with this difference—that instead of a promise to be fulfilled at
Pentecost, Jesus conveys the Spirit himself. John’s conception of the function
of the Spirit is much more similar to that of Paul than to that of Luke-Acts.
The Spirit will be a constant helper, and will replace the influence of Jesus and
his words as well as convey immortality.
The Pauline
epistles.
106 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
as necessary to salvation, but there is no evidence that he even thought or
said that the gift of the Holy Spirit was needed. The Spirit enabled him
and others to work miracles and to utter prophecies ; but salvation was
not the prerogative of prophets or of workers of miracles. Nor, finally, was
the Spirit, or sacramental grace, thought of as necessary for men to become
sons of God or to obtain forgiveness of their sins. Jesus is represented in
the Synoptic Gospels as regarding all men as children of God. Whether
their end in the world to come would be salvation or damnation depended
not on sacraments, but on themselves. The Prodigal is not saved by any-
thing except his own repentance.
Moreover, there is another great difference between the Synoptic and
the Johannine attitude toward the Spirit world. In the Synoptic gospels
nothing is more prominent than the fact of demoniacal possession. The
background of thought is exactly that of the Apocalypses discussed above
(see p. 101). The work of Jesus and of his disciples is to drive out demons,
and thus to heal disease. Jesus is represented as inspired by the Holy
Spirit, and at least in one passage in Matthew this inspiration is the source
of his power over demons. But there is no suggestion that anyone, even
the disciples, is given the Holy Spirit, still less that such a gift is necessary
for salvation. The contrast with the Johannine picture is complete. In
the latter we have not only the insistence on the necessity of re-birth by the
Spirit, spoken of above, but there is no mention of demoniacal possession.
There is indeed much mention of a devil—a single being—who is ‘ the
ruler of this world,’ but there is an immense difference between the Apo-
calyptic-Synoptic picture of Jesus and his followers exorcising demons, and
the grandiose Johannine picture of a cosmological struggle between the
Son and the Devil.
These two extremes are clearly marked. It is equally clear that they
represent the contrast between Jewish and Greek thought. Repentance,
completely and entirely sufficient for salvation, is a Jewish doctrine ; and
sacramental regeneration by the Spirit is Greek. There is no doubt about
these two extremes. The problem comes when we try to trace the passage
of Christian thinking from the one to the other. Here the evidence is con-
tained in the Epistles of Paul and in the Acts of the Apostles.
In the Pauline epistles the idea of the Spirit receives a much wider
application than in the Synoptic gospels, and interest in a theological
formulation begins to appear. The Spirit is the possession of all Christians,
it supplies the ‘ enthusiastic ’ features of Christian worship, expresses itself
in prophecy and glossolalia, and through ecstasy provides special revela-
tions. Paul’s own contribution to the doctrine of the Spirit consisted of
three main points: (i.) he identified the Lord, i.e. Christ, with the Spirit ;
(ii.) he regarded the Spirit as the source of Christian virtue and the
foundation of Christian moral life ; (iii.) he held that possession of the Spirit
was necessary for immortality. Possibly, too, he established a necessary
connexion between the gift of the Spirit and Baptism, but this is less
certain.
The result of the first point was to interpret the relation of Christ and
the believer in terms of ‘ possession,’ the normal way in which a spirit
1x THE HOLY SPIRIT 107
influenced human individuals. In this experience it is notoriously difficult
both in theory and in practice to maintain the distinction between the
personality possessed and the personality possessing. This difficulty is
responsible for the obscurity of what is often called Paul’s ‘mysticism.’ The
essence of this obscurity is the impossibility of always keeping distinct
Christ, the Spirit, and the personality of the ‘spiritual’ Christian.1 The
other two points are really corollaries of the first. From one point of view )
the process of salvation consisted in the sacrifice of Christ and the acquire- .
ment of the Spirit, and the former paved the way for the latter, but the
identification of the Lord with the Spirit intimately connected the effect
with the cause. From another point of view salvation consisted in gaining )
the necessary moral power for the realization of the Christian ethical ideal *
and in securing immortality. The natural man, of whom Adam was the
prototype, is mortal and morally impotent ; the man endowed with the
Spirit, of whom Christ, the second Adam, was the prototype, is immortal
and capable of exemplifying those lists of virtues which Paul so often indi-
cates to be the spontaneous expression of a-Christian character. It is pos-
sible for the Christian to sin, for he always retains a sufficient amount of his
old individuality to escape from the influence of the Spirit, but it is un-
necessary and unnatural for him to do so. Moreover, though it is doubtful
whether Paul fixed baptism as the moment at which the believer received
the Spirit and its accompanying privileges, it is quite certain that his
followers in the next generation did so, and thus resolved a theological
ambiguity the potential embarrassments of which for church organiza-
tion and discipline are patent in Acts. A positive significance was thus
attached to baptism which there is no evidence to show that it previously
possessed ; and for the loose connexion between the gift of the Spirit
and baptism suggested by some passages in Acts, a fixed relation was
substituted which was of constitutive significance for later history.
So much is reasonably clear. Paul is on the way to the Johannine
position, but he has not reached it, and the Epistles present a most
puzzling problem which can merely be stated in this note without any
attempt to discuss it fully.
Did Paul think that the gift of the Spirit—whether imparted by The spirit
baptism or not—was either the necessary cause or the inevitable result of vr gaa
being a Christian ?
This question is, of course, closely associated with that of Paul’s view
of baptism, but it is not identical with it. He may have held that the gift
of the Spirit came through faith, not through baptism. But did he think
that a man could be a Christian, and ‘safe’ at the day of judgement, who
was not rvevyatixds ? It is very doubtful. Did he think that ‘faith’ was
a gift of the Spirit ? He seems to say so, but it is perhaps improper to
build too much on a single phrase. Perhaps it is probable that he held
that all Christians are zvevpatixoi, but had varying xapicpara. But
whether he thought that Christians were saved because they had the Spirit,
or had the Spirit because they were saved, is more than the evidence allows
us to decide. We may suspect—there is no means of knowing certainly—
1 See also pp. 129 ff.
lye ©
Acts.
The promise
of the
Spirit.
Ananias.
The Seven.
Philip.
108 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
that Paul himself held that men were saved by the decree of God, who
willed their salvation, and therefore gave them faith and filled them with
his Spirit... But it is extremely probable that many of Paul’s Greek
converts thought that salvation depended on their own volition in accept-
ing the sacrament (or mystery) of baptism, which changed their nature by
giving them the Spirit.
Where does Acts stand ? The whole background of the book is the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the consequent actions of the Apostles,
just as the background of Mark is the war against the evil spirits. It is
indeed very remarkable that there is hardly any reference to demons
in Acts.?
This is characteristic. To Mark the important thing was to drive out
_ demons and heal disease ; apart from demons and disease (which are not
really separate) men are in no need of change. Repentance is a change of
conduct, not of nature. But to Luke the gift of the Spirit is the all-
important fact ; possibly he did not think it necessary to salvation, but a
Christian who did not have the Spirit was a very imperfect Christian.
In the opening verses* the promise is made that the Apostles will
shortly receive the Spirit. In the second chapter this promise is fulfilled,‘
and under the influence of the Spirit Peter made a speech which converted
three thousand of his hearers.° After the healing of the lame man at the
Beautiful Gate by the Name of Jesus, when Peter was arrested, he was
filled with the Holy Spirit * to make his defence to the Sanhedrin, as Jesus
had foretold.?- When Peter was released and returned to the brethren, they
were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and the place in which they were
gathered was shaken.*®
In chapter v. the deceit of Ananias is regarded as a ‘lie to the Holy
Spirit,’ apparently because it was a lie to the Apostles.°
In chapter vi. the Seven are chosen as men full of the Holy Spirit,?° and at
the end of his speech before his death Stephen is “ filled with the Holy
Spirit and saw the Glory of God.” #4
In chapter viii. 5-25 the absence of the Holy Spirit from the converts
_ of Philip is supplied by the laying on of Peter’s hands."* This passage may
be grouped with that in chapter vi. as suggesting a permanent gift of the
Spirit, rather than the intermittent gift in the other passages. It is also
noticeable that here we have a return to the ‘ war against demons’ which
Philip drove out in Samaria.4* Philip could not give the Spirit, but Peter
could do so. Clearly in the source from which this story was taken the gift
of the Spirit could be conferred by the Apostles, but not by the Seven. It
would also appear that it was a donum superadditum. It was neither the
1 T cannot understand Rom. ix.-xi. on any other hypothesis.
2 The exceptions are that in Samaria Philip (viii. 7) and at Ephesus Paul
(xix. 12) drove out evil spirits. Possibly also the story of the woman with a
Python (xvi. 16 ff.) should be reckoned in this category.
3 i, 5. 4 ii. 1 ff. 5 ii, 41. 6 iv. 8.
7 Luke xii. 12; Matt. x. 20, cf. Mark xiii. 11, contrast Luke xxi. 15.
8 iv. 31. ® v.3. 10 vi, 3, 5.
U vii. 55 £. 12 viii. 17. 13 viii. 7.
Ix THE HOLY SPIRIT 109
cause nor the necessary result of salvation. Acts is in this respect far
removed from the Pauline position.
In the following episode the references to divine intervention are curi-
' ously phrased. In viii. 26 the ‘angel of the Lord’ sent Philip to the Gaza
road ; when he meets the Eunuch ‘ the Spirit’ speaks to him; and after
he baptized the Eunuch, “ Spirit of the Lord seized Philip and the Eunuch
saw him no more,” or if the Western text be followed, “‘ Holy Spirit fell on
the Eunuch, and an angel of the Lord seized Philip.’”? What is the difference
between the angel and the Spirit who speak to Philip ? Probably it is only
a characteristically Lucan change of phrase, though it is hard to prove this.
If so, does 7vetja. mean the same in vs. 29 and in vs. 39? It will be
noticed that in this story there is no question of obsession or inspiration,
unless the Western text be followed in vs. 39,—it is throughout external
command given by the Spirit to Philip.
In the conversion of Paul (chapter ix.) it is implied, though not stated, Paul's con-
that Paul received the Spirit through his baptism by Ananias. This is the “°™ /
more interesting because it differs from Paul’s own assertion that he owed
nothing to men, but received his apostleship directly from God (see Addi-
tional Note 15), and also differs from chapter viii. by the implication that
the Spirit could be given by others than members of ‘ the Twelve,’ and that
it was the result of baptism.
In the apirteia of Peter (chapters ix. 30-xii. 17) the whole point of the Cornelius.
story of Cornelius is that he miraculously received the gift of the Spirit
without human intervention, which seems to imply the same theory of the
power of the Apostles as does chapter viii.
This chapter may be taken, for some purposes at least, as the end
of the first part of Acts. The preceding analysis shows that it is character-
ized by a vivid belief in the Spirit as a special gift conferred on at
least some Christians. In some passages this gift, which was given to the
Apostles of Jesus, can be handed on only by them, and is independent of
baptism. But other passages suggest that it was expected by all Christians.
These passages are nearer to the Pauline and Catholic view, but even in
them there is no suggestion of regeneration by the Spirit, or of the view
that salvation depends on it. In general, the gift of the Spirit in these
chapters is sudden and drives preachers such as Philip or Peter to unpre-
meditated words or actions, and produces sudden outbreaks of glossolalia
and prophecy.
There is a marked difference between this and the second part of Acts. 'The second
In this the Spirit sometimes acts suddenly and unexpectedly, as in the first P*" of Acts.
part, as for instance in xvi. 6 f. when the Spirit (once described as the Holy
Spirit, once with a characteristically Lucan change of phrase as the Spirit
of Jesus) intervenes to change Paul’s plans. But there are good reasons for “Sf
regarding this passage as editorial (see Additional Note 18). In general
however the number of references to the Spirit is remarkably smaller than in
the first part of Acts. In xx. 22 Paul says that he is ‘ bound by the Spirit’ ;
in xxi. 11 Agabus, the prophet, is inspired by the Spirit ; and in xxvii. 23
the Angel who appeared in the night might be regarded as ‘ the Spirit,’
described in words more suited to the heathen whom Paul is addressing.
e
Summary.
The basis
of belief in
Spirits.
Its source.
<
110 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
It is the paucity of these references in contrast to the first part of Acts
rather than their character which is remarkable, and it is perhaps note-
worthy that they come in speeches, not in the direct narrative.
There are, however, two other references of great importance. (i.) In
xix. 1 ff. Paul is surprised that the Ephesians had not received the Spirit, and
attributes this to some defect in their baptism. (ii.) In xx. 28 the pastoral
administration of the community is regarded as due to the Holy Spirit.
The second point is entirely Pauline, and is extremely important for the
history of the doctrine of the Episcopate. The first is not only Pauline in
the expectation that the Christians should have the Spirit, but is markedly
different from the earlier part of Acts in that it connects the Spirit with a
correct baptism. In Acts viii. 15 ff. a correct baptism is supplemented by
the laying on of Apostolic hands, and this, not the baptism of Philip, con-
ferred the Spirit. Here Paul expects that a correct baptism would confer
the Spirit, and this baptism includes the ‘ laying on of hands.’ But it is
essentially Baptism, not ‘Apostolicity,’ which is effective. (See also p. 137.)
To summarize this complicated enumeration of complex phenomena,
the evolution of thought seems to have been this : (i.) In Mark Jesus himself
is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and he promises that his disciples will have
the same gift in times of stress, but there is no suggestion that this gift will
be common, or is in any way connected with salvation. The other Synoptic
gospels do not noticeably differ from this point of view.
(ii.) In the early part of Acts the gift of the Spirit is general. It is con-
ferred on the Apostles by the risen Jesus, and by the Apostles on other
Christians. But it is an eschatological phenomenon, not the means of
salvation. In the later part of Acts it is portrayed in much the same way,
but is connected with baptism.
(iii.) In the Pauline epistles the Spirit is identified with the risen Jesus,
and the Christian is ‘ obsessed’ by him in a manner parallel to that in
which a demoniac is obsessed by a demon. This ‘ obsession,’ which some-
times leads to a complete identification of the Christian with the Christ, is
the state of salvation obtained by believers. But it is not stated by Paul
that it is obtained sacramentally ; it is rather the free gift of God.
(iv.) In the Johannine literature the Spirit is the cause (as well as in
some sense the result) of sacramental regeneration which in baptism changes
the nature of the man baptized and makes him a child of God.
The basis of the whole belief is the experience of certain men that
their words and acts seemed at times, both to theniselves and to others,
to be due to an irresistible power which made them do or say things
which they had never previously contemplated.
That experience is not peculiar to the early Church. It can be traced
in every generation. Both its source and its value are difficult and
important questions.
It may produce conduct of the worst and most irrational type.
Persons who suffer in this way used to be called demoniacs and are
now called either criminals or insane. It is generally agreed that their
x THE DAY OF PENTECOST 111
conduct is not due to obsession by any malevolent spirit, but to some
defect of constitution, natural or acquired.
Similarly there are, and always have been, leaders of men, reformers,
teachers, poets, and prophets who seem to themselves to have spoken
and acted as they did because some higher power controlled their words
and deeds. Their own generation has often stoned them, but their true
memorial is not in their tombs but in the history of the race. It used
to be said that they were inspired by God: it is now thought that, like
the demoniacs, they can be explained as the result of some unusual
development of mind or nature,
There can be no doubt that the demoniac type is a menace of evil Its value.
and that the best of the prophetic type are often the direct cause of
progress. But just as the ancient world hesitated in which class certain
persons should be placed, so to-day it is often impossible to say whether
a@ man is a psychopathic subject or a great leader. As the writer of
Deuteronomy perceived, only the future can settle the question. ‘When
a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not nor
come to pass that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken.”
It is therefore not surprising that the Jews emphasized obedience to
the Law rather than to the voice of Prophets, and that the Church
mutatis mutandis ultimately did the same. Nevertheless, ‘inspiration,’
whatever its source may be, is the motive power of life, while reason is
its guide; and the problem of sane existence is not a choice between
Reason and Inspiration or between the Law and Prophecy, but how to
maintain them both in that relation of unstable equilibrium which in
the spiritual as well as in the physical world is the condition of life in
contrast with death.
Note X. Tue Girt of THE SPIRIT ON THE Day OF PENTECOST
By Krirsopr Lake
The problem involved by this episode is twofold. First, what did the
writer himself think was the importance of the event described ? Secondly,
what is the relation between the editor, the sources, and the actual facts ?
1. The Opinion of the Writer
1. The writer of Acts regarded the Day of Pentecost as the moment ches Lucan
when the gift of inspiration was conferred on the disciples and they began “” ae
the ministry of Evangelization. The apostles had not possessed this power
before. It had not been given them at their appointment by Jesus, de-
scribed in Luke vi., though it had been foretold in his parting words on
the day of the Ascension. But from the moment of Pentecost they had
been inspired by the same gift of the Holy Spirit of God which had filled
their master during his ministry on earth, by which also he had himself
chosen them (Acts i. 2). Henceforward all they did or said was inspired
Obscurities.
Tongues,
Prophecy. \
112 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
by the Spirit, and the Church of which they were the leaders was the society
of those who acquired the Spirit (see Vol. I. pp. 322 ff.). Three points,
however, are doubtful.
(a) It is not clear whether the writer thought that at Pentecost
the Spirit was given to the apostles or to all the Christians, of whom
he says (Acts i. 15) that there were 120. The question depends on the
meaning of ‘all’ in ii. 1 and 4, which is unfortunately obscure (see note
ad loc.).
(6) It is also not clear whether the writer thought that the Spirit
received at Pentecost was to betransmitted by baptism or by the laying on
of hands. Certainly some of his sources thought that it was conferred by
baptism, but in other places it seems that it came through ‘the laying on
of hands by the apostles, and that baptism itself was not sufficient to confer
the gift (see Vol. I. pp. 332 ff.).
(c) Finally, it is not clear whether the writer thought that the preaching
to the crowd which had assembled in surprise, immediately after the gift
of the Spirit, was the beginning of preaching to the Gentiles or merely to
Jews of the Diaspora. If Ropes’s view be adopted, the word *Iovéaiou in
ii. 5 should be omitted ; if so, the intention of the writer is to depict the
crowd as representing the Gentiles—possibly God-fearers, but not Jews,—
but if ‘Iovdaior be retained, he means that they were Jews of the Diaspora.
This question is discussed further on p. 113 f.
2. The writer believed that the immediate effect of the gift of the
Spirit was that the recipient spoke with other tongues. | From the context .
it is clear that he interpreted ‘ other tongues’ to be ‘ other languages,’ so
that some, but not all, of the foreigners who were listening were able to
understand what was said. Thus there was a miracle of hearing as well as
a miracle of speech. But the details of the situation are obscure. Did he
think that all the Christians present were speaking, or only the Twelve ?
Did he think that each of the Twelve spoke in a different language ? If so,
but not otherwise, there is much force in Harnack’s suggestion that the
original text of the list of nations mentioned twelve. These questions can
be raised, indeed must be, but there is no evidence in the narrative to
answer them.
3. A further point of less doubt is that he clearly identified glossolalia
with prophecy. In 1 Corinthians Paul clearly distinguishes glossolalia
from prophecy, regarding the one as intelligible, the other as unintelligible.
But according to the speech of Peter the speaking with tongues at Jerusalem
was a fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel ii. 28-32, that in the last days the
Spirit should descend on Israel conveying to their sons and daughters the
gift of prophecy, and into the text of this quotation he perhaps inserts
‘and they shall prophesy.’ These words, if genuine, are central in his
argument, though they are not in the original text of Joel; all the more,
therefore, do they represent his own opinion, and he must have thought
that ‘speaking with tongues’ was ‘ prophecy.’ It is unfortunate that a
textual problem is again involved in this question (see notes ad loc.), but
even if the words be omitted the meaning of the quotation remains
the same.
x THE DAY OF PENTECOST 113
, 4, From the emphasis laid on the point in the speech of Peter it is The Spirit
Y clear that the writer regarded the gift of the Spirit as eschatological. But moa
once more a textual question is involved. The eschatological meaning
of Pentecost is emphasized by a change which he makes in the quotation
from Joel. Joel said, “‘ After these things I will pour out my spirit,” and
this is the reading of B and of a papyrus fragment of Acts, but other
Mss. substitute ‘in the last days,’ bringing out the eschatological meaning.
It is hardly safe to hold a decided opinion on the text, for the external
evidence is not sufficient, though the powerful internal evidence seems
convincing.
Nevertheless, here the question of reading is secondary. The end of the
quotation amply proves the eschatological meaning attached to the gift of
the Spirit. This perpetuates the tradition, found in the Synoptic Gospels
and attributed to John the Baptist, which connected the gift of the Spirit |
with the purification which would take place in the last day (see H. Win-
disch, Taufe und Siinde, pp. 34 ff., and Vol. I. p. 324), and though this view
is not explicitly found in Acts, it is unlikely that it was not shared by the
writer of the book. Perhaps the eschatological cleansing of the nation was
being replaced in his mind by a cleansing of the individual, but it would be
difficult to prove this, probable though it may appear.
5. Did the writer also regard Pentecost as beginning the preaching of Pentecost
the Gospel to the Gentiles, or, in other words, did he think of the crowd, ee
which assembled when they heard the apostles speaking with tongues, as
Jewish or Gentile? The question is partly one of textual criticism, partly
of general consideration.
The text of ii. 5 in the Textus Receptus is joav dé év “lepovoaAnp The Text.
katovkovrtes “lovdaios, avdpes edAaBeis ard ravtds EOvous Tov trd Td
ovpavov. This text is found in B, but in the other old uncials of the
Neutral group (NAC) there is considerable variation of order; S omits
*Tovdator, and C puts “lovdaior between avdpes and edAaPeis, and Kart-
ovxovrtes before <v “lepovoadA7jp. Such confused evidence raises a strong
suspicion that katoixotvres and ’lovdaio. may be additions to the text,
derived probably from the opening words of Peter’s speech in ii. 14 (avdpes
*Tovéaior kat ot katoxovvtes lepovoad7jp).
The case for omitting xatotxotyres is much the less strong, and for the
present purpose at least much the less important. Apart from the external
evidence, in which the variations of order suggest, but do not prove, that
Katoukovrtes is not original, the word seems to contradict vs. 9. The
same people can scarcely have been xatovxovvres both in Jerusalem
and also in Mesopotamia. But this point cannot be pressed, as in ii. 14
katouxovytes is used in a different sense, apparently synonymous with the
exidnpovvtes of vs. 10, and it is very doubtful whether there was clear
difference in the mind of the editor between xatoxotyres and eriynpovvres.
It is his custom to vary his phrase without changing his meaning.
But the omission of *Iovdaio. is very strongly supported by internal
evidence. In vs. 10 ‘Jews and proselytes’ are treated as one of the
component parts of the crowd. If so, obviously the rest of the crowd
was not composed of Jews. Probably ‘lovdaio. in vs. 5 was originally a
VOL. V I
Biblical and
Jewish
parallels,
(i) Babel.
114 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
mistaken gloss on evAa/eis, and later, as so often happens, the gloss and
the original reading were conflated. The gloss without the text is found
in the African Latin, which reads Judaei instead of translating evAaeis.
(See also Vol. ITT. p. 12.)
The suggestion that "lovdaiot re kali mpoojAvror in vs. 10 does not
mean a separate group, but is a definition of of éridnpodvres “Pwpaior,
can hardly be sustained, as the same re «ai construction is used twice
previously in the list (r)v Mecororapiar, "lovdaiay te kat Karmadoxiav
and’Agiav, Ppvyiav re kai IlaydvA‘av), and in neither case can the Te
kai phrase be taken as modifying the previous word.
If the word ‘Jovéaior be omitted from vs. 5 it is impossible to resist the
plain statement of the text that the multitude at Pentecost represented the
whole world, heathen and Jewish alike, and, if so, the writer of Acts must
have regarded the preaching at Pentecost as the beginning of the world-
wide mission given to the apostles in i. 8. It is, perhaps, to be noted as
characteristic of the style of Acts, which so frequently changes a phrase
while repeating its meaning, that éws érydtov Tis y7js ini. 8 is represented
by zavrds eOvous Tav id Tdv obpavdv. The desire of the writer was not
to describe the development of doctrine or the evolution of the Church,
both of which are ideas foreign to his age, but to show that from the
beginning the Gentiles heard and the Jews refused the testimony of the
Spirit.
6. Three Old Testament and Jewish parallels are so obvious that
although they are not actually pointed out by the writer it is difficult to
think that they were not present to his mind.
The first is that of the Tower of Babel, where the phenomena were the
reverse of those of Pentecost. The men of ‘the beginning’ had but one
speech, intelligible not only to all men but even to all animals. Cf. Philo,
De confus. ling. 3, p. 405 M.: “And there is also another story akin to this,
related by the devisers of fables, concerning the sameness of language existing
among animals: for they say that formerly, all the animals in the world,
whether land animals, or aquatic ones, or winged ones, had but one language,
and that, just as among men Greeks speak the same language as Greeks, and
the present race of barbarians speak the same language as barbarians,
exactly in the same manner every animal was able to converse with every
other animal with which it might meet, and with which it did anything, or
from which it suffered anything.” 1 And cf. also Josephus, Antig. i. 1. 4:
** Now God commanded Adam and his wife to eat of all the other plants,
but to abstain from the tree of knowledge, and foretold them, that if they
touched it, it would prove their destruction. But as all living creatures
had one language at that time, the serpent, who then lived together with
Adam and his wife, was envious of their happiness, for he thought they
would be happy if they obeyed the commands of God, and that if they
1 repos Oé Tis cuyyevins ToUTw Tepl Tis TGV SGwv duopwrlas pds pvOoracr&v
dvaypdgerac* éyerar yap, ws dpa wdvl’ boa §Ga xepoaia Kal évvdpa cal wrnva
7) madaidv dudpwva jv, kal dvrep rpdrov avOpmrwv “EdAnves ev “EAQot, Bap-
Bdpos dé BadpBapor viv of dubyAwrro diadéyovrat, Todrov Tov Tpbroy Kal mdvTa
waot wepl Gv i) Spav 7) wdoxew Te cvvéBawev wyutre.
x THE DAY OF PENTECOST 115
disobeyed them, they would fall into calamities. So he persuaded the
woman, out of malicious intent, to taste of the tree of knowledge, telling
her that in that tree was the knowledge of good and evil; which know-
ledge whoso should obtain would lead a happy life; nay, a life not in-
ferior to that of a god.” + Owing to their sin this primitive language was
‘confounded’: that of animals at the fall, that of men at the Tower of
Babel, but at ‘the End’ the redeemed will again have but one speech.
Ct. Test. xi. Patr., Jud. 25. 3, kat érec Oe cis Aadv Kupiov Kal yAdooa
pia Kal ovK €oTau éxei mvedpo. wAdvns Tot BeAiap, and Plutarch, De
Iside, c. 47, éva _ Biov Kat pilav moXureiav avOparwv paKkaplov Kat
dpoyhioowv ravtwv yevérOat, Considering the eschatological nature
of the story of Pentecost, especially Peter’s speech, this evidence is
significant. ,
The second passage of importance is Isaiah xxviii. 11 f., which is quoted pal
by Paul in 1 Cor. xiv. 21: “ For with stammering lips and another tongue
will he speak to this people . . . yet they would not hear.” This parallel
is much more striking if we accept the text omitting ‘ Jews’ at the be-
ginning of the story and think that the writer regarded the preaching at
Pentecost as the beginning of the mission to the Gentiles ; the foreigners
understood what was said, each man hearing the Apostles speak in his own
language, but it was unintelligible to the Jews who thought that the
speakers were full of new wine.
The third parallel—from Jewish literature, not the Old Testament—is ra ) bores
that traditionally the Day of Pentecost was that on which the Law was Sinai.
given, and was marked by phenomena similar to those described in Acts.
The tradition as to the date is found in the Talmud (Pesahim 686), but not
in Philo or Josephus, and therefore cannot be proved to be as early as Acts.
But the following quotations from Philo describing the phenomena which
attended the giving of the Law show a marked similarity to those which
accompanied the gift of the Spirit to the disciples. “* For God is not like a
man, in need of a mouth, and of a tongue, and of a windpipe, but as it seems
to me, he at that time wrought a most conspicuous and evidently holy
miracle, commanding an invisible sound to be created in the air, more
marvellous than all the instruments that ever existed, attuned to perfect
harmonies ; and that not an inanimate one, nor yet, on the other hand,
one that at all resembled any nature composed of soul and body; but
rather it was a rational soul filled with clearness and distinctness, which
fashioned the air and stretched it out and changed it into a kind of flaming
fire, and so sounded forth so loud and articulate a voice like a breath
passing through a trumpet, so that those who were at a great distance
1 6 dh Tolvuy Beds Tov “Adamov Kal Tiy yuvaika Tov ev Ar\wv puTdv éxédeve
yeverOa, Too 5é Tis Ppovijcews amwéxerOat, mpoeuray dwapévos dw avrod d5deOpov
yevnobuevov. spopwvoivrwy dé kar’ éxeivo Katpod Trav fgwv amdvTwv sds ouv-
Siarrwmmevos TH Te "Adduw Kal TH yuvatkl POovepds pev elxey ed’ ols avrovs
evdaimovicew ero wemecpuévous Tos TOO Beod wapayyé\uacw, olduevos 5é ounpopg
wepimeccicbat wmapaxovoavras dvamelOer kaxondws Thy yuvaika yetoacOa Tod purod
THs ppovicews év abt@ éyww elvac THy Te Taya000 Kal TOD KaKxod didyywouw, Fs
yevouévns avrots waxdpioy kal undev donelrovra Tod Belov didéew Blor.
Paul and
glossolalia.
116 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
appeared to hear equally with those who were nearest to it” (De Dec. 9).
** And a voice sounded forth from out of the midst of the fire which had
flowed from heaven, a most marvellous and awful voice, the flame being
endowed with articulate speech in a language familiar to the hearers, which
expressed its words with such clearness and distinctness that the people
seemed rather to be seeing than hearing it’ (De Dec. 11).?
These quotations speak for themselves. Even more remarkable are
some of the statements in the Rabbinic literature, conveniently collected
by Spitta (Apg. pp. 27 f.), though none of them can be proved to be as early
as Acts. The most striking is in Midrash Tanhuma 26c: “ Although the
ten Commandments were promulgated with a single sound, it says, ‘ All
people heard the voices’ ; it follows then that when the voice went forth
it was divided into seven voices and then went into seventy tongues, and
every people received the law in their own language.” It will be noted that
this parallel is much more striking if it be accepted that those who under-
stood the glossolalia of the apostles were Gentiles as well as Jews.
2. The Facts, the Source of Acts, and the Editor
1. Paul’s Description of Glossolalia.—The view to be taken of the
relation between the historical facts, the source of Acts, and the editor
depends largely on the description given of glossolalia in 1 Corinthians.
In 1 Cor. xii. 10, Paul says that there “are given to one diverse kinds of
tongues and to another the interpretation of tongues.” Then in chap. xiv.,
distinguishing between ‘ glossolalia’ and ‘ prophecy,’ he writes as follows:
“For he that speaks in a tongue speaks not unto men, but unto God;
for no man hears; but in the spirit he speaks mysteries. But he that
prophesies speaks to men,—edification, and comfort, and consolation. He
that speaks in a tongue edifies himself ; but he that prophesies edifies the
church. Now I wish you all to speak with tongues, but rather that you
should prophesy: and he that prophesies is greater than he that speaks
with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall
I profit you, unless I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of
knowledge, or of prophesying, or of teaching? Similarly inanimate things
making a sound, whether pipe or harp, if they give not a distinction in the
notes, how shall it be known what is piped or harped ? For if the trumpet
1 od yap ws dvOpwios 6 Beds, oréuaros Kal yAwrTys Kal dprynpiay Seduevos. aAAA
yé wow Soxe? kar éxeivoy tov xpdbvov leporperéoraréy tt Oavyarovpyjoa Kededoas
Fixov déparov év dép SnurouvpynOfvac mavrwv dpydvwv Oavuacisrepoy dapyoviats
Terelats Hpoopevov, otk apuxov adn’ ods ex odparos Kal Wuxis rpdrov fou
cuveornkbra, GAXd Wuxhv Aoyixhy dvdwew capnvelas Kal Tpavdryntos, 4 Tov dépa
oxnuaticaca Kal émirelvaca Kal mpds mop Proyoedés weraBadotoa xabdmep Tredua
bia oddreyyos pwviy rocairnyv evapOpor éEnxnoEv ws Tois eyyioTa Tos ToppwTdra
kar’ toov dxpodcbat Soxeiv,
2 gwvh 5’ ex pwéoov Tod prévros am’ ovpavod mupds é&jxer KaramdnkTiKwrdrn,
Ths pdoyds els diddexrov dpOpovpévns Thy ouviOn Tois dxpowpuévors, 7 TH eyoueva
otrws évapy@s érpavodvro ws épav avira. maddov 7 dxovew doxeiv.
—ee +
a THE DAY OF PENTECOST 117
give an uncertain voice, who shall prepare himself for war? So also you,
unless you utter by the tongue intelligible speech, how shall it be known
what is spoken ? for ye will be speaking into the air. There are a given
number, whatever it may be, of kinds of sound in the world, and nothing
is without sound. If then I know not the meaning of the sound, I shall
be to him that speaketh a foreigner, and he that speaketh will be a foreigner
to me. So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that you
may have many of them to the edifying of the church. Wherefore let him
that speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a
tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is barren. What is to be
done then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the under-
standing also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the under-
standing also. Else if you bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupies
the place of the unlearned say ‘Amen’ to your giving of thanks, seeing
he does not know what you are saying? For it is true that you are giving
thanks well, but the other is not being edified. Thank God, I speak with
tongues more than you all; but in church my wish is to speak five words
with my understanding, that I may instruct others also, than ten thousand
words in a tongue.
“Brethren, be not children in mind. Yet in malice be babes, but in
mind be grown up. In the Law it is written, By men of strange tongues
and by the lips of strangers will I speak unto this people ; and not even thus
will they hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not
to them that believe, but to the unbelieving : but prophesying is for a sign,
not to the unbelieving, but to them that believe. If therefore the whole
church be assembled together, and all speak with tongues, and there come
in men unlearned or unbelieving, will they not say that you are mad ?
But if all prophesy, and there come in one unbelieving or unlearned, he
is reproved by all, he is examined by all; the secrets of his heart are made
manifest ; and so he will fall down on his face and worship God, declaring
that God is indeed among you.”
From this passage it is clear that to a mind of Paul glossolalia was
speech becoming more and more ecstatic until at last it was entirely un-
intelligible, so that if any stranger came into the church while a Christian
was speaking, he was likely to say that the Christian was mad. Turning
to Acts, only just below the surface of the account of Pentecost, can be
seen phenomena of just the same nature as Paul describes. It is true that
as it stands the narrative suggests speech of unusual intelligibility ; but
the opinion of some of the bystanders was that the apostles were drunk,
and Peter in his speech does not say that this was an absurd accusation ;
indeed, he rather accepts it as natural, and merely says that it cannot be
true because it is too early in the day. It is scarcely necessary to add
that this kind of glossolalia is very common in history, and is merely the
removal of inhibitions under the stress of great emotion. (See K. Lake,
Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, p. 241, and E. Mosiman, Das Zungenreden.)
2. The Theory of a‘ Source’ for Acts ti.—The facts given in the previous Souree-
section have often suggested the theory that Luke was dealing with a “Titicism.
written source which did not say anything about speaking in unknown
Paul and
Acts.
118 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
languages, but gave an ordinary description of glossolalia, such as Paul
describes. He himself had not been present at scenes where glossolalia
was to be observed, but he knew that it had been a common experience of
+ the early church. Influenced by a natural but wrong etymology and by
_ the Old Testament and Jewish parallels discussed above, he explained
| glossolalia as speaking with foreign languages and re-wrote the story so
as to bring out his own interpretation. Nevertheless, the accusation of
' drunkenness and Peter’s speech remain to show that this is editorial and
not historical.
This hypothesis can be supported on two grounds: (a) Inconsistency
with the Pauline description of glossolalia, and (b) Inconsistencies in the
narrative itself.
(a) Inconsistency with the Pauline Description.—This is obvious, but
it can be easily exaggerated. It is often overlooked that Paul speaks not
merely of glossolalia but also of a corresponding gift of the Spirit which
enabled men to understand glossolalia. Translating his words into terms
of modern experience, what he says is that in early Christian communities
brethren were sometimes seized with an attack of ecstatic speech which
was entirely unintelligible to most of the congregation. This was glosso-
lalia. But there were sometimes a few in the congregation who believed
that they did understand, and they interpreted to the rest what they had
heard. To them at least glossolalia was not unintelligible; they were
hearing in it the ‘ wonderful works of God.’ The rest of the crowd heard
nothing but confused babble, and unless they were Christians thought that
the speakers were mad.
In the same way Luke may mean that on the Day of Pentecost, when the
Christians were gifted with glossolalia, some of the pious visitors were also
gifted with the power of interpreting the speech which they identified with
their own dialects, while the rest were not so inspired and, therefore, needed
Peter’s speech in order to explain the situation. Interpreted on these lines
there is nothing in the narrative essentially inconsistent with Paul’s state-
ments. It may have been written either by Luke or by some earlier writer.
It should be noted that the importance of these remarks is not neces-
sarily to discredit the hypothesis of a Lucan redaction of an earlier account,
though of course they can be used in that sense. That hypothesis ulti-
mately stands or falls according to the weight attached to the arguments
in the next section. But it seems to me that it is intrinsically improbable
that Luke, whether he was a companion of Paul, or belonged to a younger
generation, should have written anything in unredeemed contradiction to
Pauline teaching. Even if—as is probable—he had never read 1 Corin-
thians, he can hardly have been ignorant of Paul’s teaching, and it is
important to note that the story as it stands can well be a redaction of an
earlier document, made by a member of the Pauline school, who did not
fully understand it, but was imbued with the Pauline distrust of unin-
telligible glossolalia.
It therefore remains a problem of literary rather than historical
criticism, whether we suppose that Acts ii., as we have it now, is a recension
of an early source, or is the composition of the writer of the book.
x THE DAY OF PENTECOST 119
(6) Inconsistences in the Narrative itself—None of these are obtrusively Incon-_
evident, for Luke was an extremely good editor who often concealed admir- **‘°"“'**
ably his editorial changes. This can be seen by a comparison of Mark and
Luke, which often shows that Luke has edited his sources without leaving
any trace, so that if Mark was not extant it would never be guessed that
he had done so. Nevertheless, it is strange that there is no word in the
speech of Peter about the miracle of interpretation by the ‘ pious "—merely
a refutation of the criticism by the ‘ others’ who said that the apostles
‘were full of sweet wine.’ Moreover, vs. 7 seems to be a doublet ! of vs. 12,
and though 7d 7760s in vs. 6, with its present context, apparently means
‘the whole company ’ of the evAaeis just mentioned, it would more natur-
ally mean‘the populace’ (see note on iv.32). The facts would be adequately
covered if it were supposed that the original source ran “and they were
all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with tongues, as the
Spirit gave them utterance, and when this voice arose the populace came
together, and they were all astonished and perplexed, one saying to another.
‘What does this mean?’ But others jeered and said, ‘They are full of
sweet wine.’ ”
This would lead up perfectly to Peter’s speech, and it is not incon-
ceivable that Luke believed that glossolalia was speaking in languages
which some pious people could understand though ordinary men could
not, and therefore inserted ‘ other’ before tongues, and added the story
of the ‘ pious’ visitors. In this way he produced the double statement
of their astonishment in vss. 7 and 12, and forgot to insert any reference
to this story into the speech of Peter.
If this suggestion be accepted, the next question is whether there are
any signs that the source was in Aramaic rather than Greek. There is
certainly no reason for thinking that it was Aramaic. The only sign of
the kind in this section is 00x idov in vs. 7, which is certainly curious Greek,
and may be a translation from the Aramaic, but may be an imitation of the
LXX (see note ad loc.). Moreover, it unfortunately comes in one of the
verses most likely to be editorial.
Thus, returning to the main question, it seems that there is not enough Conclusion.
evidence to make the hypothesis certain, though it is not impossible or
even improbable. Incidentally it may be noted that if it be true it indi- -
cates that the speech of Peter was in Luke’s source, and was not composed
by him; for had he composed it, he would surely have dealt with the
story of the pious Jews who understood the apostles.
A final judgement must be based on the accumulated evidence of all
the passages in which Luke certainly or conceivably is editing sources. It
depends far more on a study of the gospel than of Acts, for in the gospel
the source is extant, and the method of editing is visible. Speaking gener-
ally, it would seem that Luke, like other ancient writers, took sections from
his sources and more or less remodelled the language, sometimes changing
the meaning, but did not make a mosaic out of several narratives. If he
had two narratives he was more likely to use both consecutively than to
1 éttcravro dé kal eBavpator Né-yorres (vs. 7), c&loravro 6é rdvres Kal Sentopoivro
& os wpds GdANov Aێyorres (vs. 12).
The facts.
nye
120 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
attempt a combination. Sometimes, however, he certainly inserted one
narrative into the middle of another. Thus in Luke v. | ff. he inserts the
story of the ‘ miraculous draught’ into the story of the ‘ call of Peter.’
The parallel narratives of Mark i. 16 ff. and John xxi. 1 ff. is the proof that
the stories existed separately. The only question is whether the combina-
tion was made by Luke, or found by him in a source. This is exactly the
same question as confronts us in Acts ii., but in neither place is there
enough evidence to justify an unqualified decision.
3. The Historical Value of the Narrative-—In any consideration of this
question, in the end we appeal to probability and to preconceived ideas as
to what may or may not have happened. This much must be conceded,
but it does not necessarily follow that such preconceived ideas are wrong.
Taking, then, the general standard of probability as a guide, there are
certain features in the account of the day of Pentecost which do not seem
to be historical. J
(a) It is unlikely that any body of men witnessing the phenomena
described ever made a speech in which they gave a complete catalogue of
the nations from which they had been taken.
(6) It is unlikely that men who were not members of the Christian
community thought that they were capable of understanding Christians
who were speaking with tongues. The same emotional circumstances
which lead one man in any given congregation to speak with tongues
may conceivably lead another in the same congregation to think that he
understands him, but this would not apply to those outside the group.
(c) Just as it is extremely likely that the Day of Pentecost was
marked by the first instance of glossolalia in the Christian community,
it is extremely unlikely that this took the form of speaking in foreign
languages. ' The tradition of the foreign languages is the attempt to
explain the glossolalia by a friendly author, separated by time from
the actual event, just as the charge of drunkenness was the attempt
of unfriendly observers, separated by lack of sympathy. Quite possibly
the form of the Lucan narrative was partly brought about by the desire
to refute damaging accusations. The presence of the foreigners may be
merely complementary to that of the miracle of languages, and designed
to support it. This would be by no means a unique instance of an
improbable imaginary incident being supported by an equally imaginary
but slightly less improbable collection of witnesses. But this view is
not necessary, and it is by no means impossible that the first notable
increase in the numbers of the Christian community was really the result
of the inspired preaching of the Day of Pentecost, and was due to the
effect of the glossolalia on those who listened.
After allowing to these points as much or as little weight as may
seem necessary, one positive conclusion stands out clearly. At the
; beginning of its history the apostolic circle in Jerusalem underwent a
_ deeply moving psychological experience. It was of the nature which
to that and many later generations was known as ‘inspiration.’ They
\had made no claim to inspiration during Christ’s life, but did so almost
‘immediately afterwards.
XI THE NAME, BAPTISM, ETC. 121
There were apparently two traditions as to the exact moment—the
Lucan, which said that it was fifty days after the Resurrection, and the
Johannine, which said that it was when Jesus breathed on them and
said “ Receive ye the Holy Spirit” (John xx. 22). Both traditions
connect the gift with the risen Lord, but in Acts it is primarily an
eschatological phenomenon, in John it is the basis of the power to
forgive sins—a function of the permanent Church, not a sign of the |
last: days.
To that generation it appeared clear that the phenomenon of
‘inspiration’ was the result of obsession by ‘spirit’; to us it appears
rather as a problem of psychology ; but whatever may be its explanation,
the phenomenon itself is one which constantly recurs in the history
of religion.
It has also often been suggested that in some circles the experience Pentecost
of the apostles of Pentecost may have been regarded as a Christophany ae
rather than as the gift of the spirit (see for instance E. von Dobschiitz,
Ostern und Pfingsten). All such hypotheses have too little definite
evidence in their support ever to become more than interesting possi-
bilities. There is however nothing intrinsically improbable in the
suggestion, especially in view of Paul’s statement that the Lord is the
Spirit. If it be accepted, it is not difficult to take the next step and say
that the event described by Luke as the outpouring of the Spirit may be
the same as that described by Paul in 1 Cor. xv. 6, as the appearance
of the risen Lord to about five hundred brethren at once.
[On the whole subject see especially H. Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des
heiligen Geistes ; K. Lake, Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 241 ff. ; J. Weiss,
Der erste Korintherbrief, pp. 335-339; E. Mosiman, Das Zungenreden ;
Feine’s article on Zungenreden in the Realencyklopddie fiir prot. Theologie,
ed. 3; Reitzenstein, Poimandres (especially pp. 55 ff.); and O. Pfister,
Jahrbuch der Psycho-analyse, iii. (1911) pp. 427 ff.]
Notre XI. Toe Namz, BaptrisM, AND THE LAYING ON oF HaNnps
By Siva New
The belief that a name is a powerful instrument in dealing with many The magical
phases of daily life is primitive and very widely spread. Like various other petted
practices now termed superstitious it is one of those fundamental human
reactions which are found in similar forms throughout the world, but it
would be a fallacy to attempt to link them more immediately than by the
fact that they are instinctive responses to similar phenomena.
In even the most casual study of anthropological sources instances of
the use of names are readily found. In some tribes each member still
entrusts his real name to some material object such as a stick or a stone
and then hides this container, lest by knowledge of his name his enemies
be enabled to do him harm. The complement of this is the theory which
is implied by giving an enemy’s name to a doll, a waxen image, or some
122 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
other representative of the person named and then injuring or destroying
the image, in the belief that the enemy himself will thus be injured or
destroyed. Others have the custom of taking a new name in old age in
order to ensure a new lease of life.t Moreover, not only the names of
human individuals have been considered of magical importance. Fre-
quently the true name of a god was concealed and only the initiates could
use it to compel him to do their will. In one story Osiris died because Set
learned his real name and was thereby enabled to do him harm. Roman
liturgies enumerate all the known names and epithets for each of the
gods addressed, to avoid the possibility of omitting just the one which
will be potent,—nor are the Roman liturgies alone in this characteristic.
Even cities were felt to be involved with their names, so that the
name of a city or of its protecting deity was carefully guarded, lest
enemies might use the latter to entice away the guardian power or the
former to break down the defences.
All of these varied practices are in some sense parallels, at least in
that there may be supposed to be some human instinct which is in the
last resort the origin of each one of them. Behind each is the identification
of the name used with the person or thing to which that name refers. To
enumerate a list, as above, partially states the problem but it does not
solve it. Why was this identification so constantly made? Probably
because many people think in pictures, and to them the name of a person
and a mental picture of the person named are fused. Thus, at an un-
critical and unselfconscious stage, the man and his name were the same
thing, and the next step was easy and natural: the use of a person’s name
controlled his actions and his very existence as effectively as did a man
who battled with and overcame him. A corollary to this belief was that
the qualities and powers of a man or a deity were also inherent in his name.
The elaborations of these beliefs were in some cases as little thought out
as the original primitive association of the person and his name, and in
some, as in the Roman liturgies, were purely mechanical attempts at
consistency. Even to the present day, when the beliefs formulated above
would certainly be rejected by educated people, there are many parallels
to this instinctive association of name and person. Why do children so
often bear the names of parents or more remote ancestors? Why do most
men dread to die without descendants who will carry on the family name?
How many people hope that they will be remembered by name, long after
they themselves are dead, for something which they have said or done ?
And yet an attempt to explain these desires reasonably and coldly sounds
quite as unconvincing as an anthropologist’s discourse on why a savage
expects certain definite magical results from the utterance of a name.
Further discussion of why a name became a powerful instrument of
1 Mk. iii. 16 f. can hardly be claimed as an example of an attempt to
induce certain qualities magically, by giving men names which suggest them.
It is far more probable that by ‘Peter’ and ‘Sons of Thunder’ Jesus was
describing qualities which he had discerned in Simon and the sons of Zebedee,
—whether Luke ix. 54 f. be accepted as true, and a probable reason for calling
the latter Boanerges or not.
xI THE NAME, BAPTISM, ETC. 123
magic is probably futile, and for the present purpose unnecessary, since it
is certain that it did so. In the world into which Jesus was born ‘it was so
implicitly accepted that he and his contemporaries wasted no more time in
discussion of it than a later generation does in querying the effectiveness
of antiseptics. It is this assumption of the power of a name which
must be emphasized at the beginning of any intelligible treatment of its
place in the theory and practice of early Christianity, since in the modern
world it has been so far outgrown that the formulae which embody it can
only be repeated if no question be asked as to what the words actually
mean.?
The Gospel of Mark.—The clearest example of the use of the Name in The Name
Mark is in ix. 38 ff.: épy aitd 6 “lwavvys, Addoxare, eldapev Tia év me Hark
TO dvopati cov éxBadAovra Saupdvea, Kat exw Avopev avTov, OTL OvK
jrohovGet %) npiv. 6 be ‘Ingots cirev, My) kovere avrTov, ovdels yap eT LV
ds tomoes Sivapiv ert ty dvdpati pov Kat Suvycetas Taxd Kako-
Aoynoal pe. Os yap ovK fore Kad? pov trep iyuav éoti. There is
no doubt as to the meaning. The disciples saw a stranger who cast out
devils by commanding them in the Name of Jesus. They objected
because he was not a disciple, but Jesus pointed out that the man who
worked miracles by the use of his Name could not very well then turn
about and become his enemy. Here it is not any power, consciously con-
veyed to the miracle-worker by Jesus, which commands the devils ; it is
simply the use of his Name by a completely unauthorized person.* To
1 Compare the account of Eleazar in Josephus, Ant. viii. 2. 5. This
man used to heal demoniacs by drawing the devil out through their noses,
using a ring with an herb in it recommended by Solomon, and Solomon’s
name—ZodouGvos peurnpévos.
2 However helpful to the interpretation of the New Testament a clear
perception of historical perspective may be, it was not the atmosphere in
which the early Christian moved. It is easier to understand a ‘superstition’
if parallel or causal phenomena are studied also. The danger is in forgetting
that those for whom this superstition was a living thing were unaware of
any parallels or any of those facts which seem to the historian the ultimate
explanation of the belief. It was simply a reaction to some part of the world
as it was then seen. Nor is it legitimate to condemn as inconsistent beliefs —
about two different things which had no connexion in the minds of those who
formulated the beliefs.
% Much recent discussion has been expended on the nice problem of whether
there is not a slight variation of meaning between the phrases év 7g évéuari,
éxl TG dvéuari, and es 7d dvoua, but a negative answer would seem to be offered
by the usage of the New Testament itself. Paul, the earliest of the writers,
rarely uses the phrase ‘ in the name of,’ but on the three occasions on which he
mentions it in connexion with baptism it is twice els 7d dvoua and once év
T@ dvéuart. In the passage from Mark quoted above ézi is found in some
manuscripts in verse 38 and év in some in verse 39. In verse 38 7@ évéyuari
without a preposition also occurs. Is there any difference of meaning in the
expressions ? According to the text preferred by the editors the disciples say
124 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
cast out a devil by commanding him in the Name of Jesus to go was so
fully in accord with the beliefs of the time that it raised no comment.
The disciples were not surprised at the success of the measure; they
objected to it as unauthorized. Jesus himself had the power to cast out
devils, and therefore his Name carried the same power, no matter who
pronounced it.!_ This belief persisted for centuries. In the second century
év 7r@ évduarc and Jesus érl 7@ évduarc in referring to the same occurrence,
but in the Lucan parallel it is the disciples who use éri and not Jesus. It
is thus difficult to suppose that the phrases are not synonymous. The
opinion, also, of the scribes who wrote the extant manuscripts of the New
Testament seems clearly to have been that there was no distinction between the
various ways of expressing ‘ in the name,’ and translators have usually rendered
the Greek on this assumption. This is natural in a language which was already
using e/s and év interchangeably in all connexions, the first step toward that
modern Greek in which e/s serves for both and éy is lost to the spoken language.
The question is only one aspect of the larger problem of the character of the
language used by the writers of the New Testament and of its relation to
Aramaic and to the Koine Greek of the period. The point of chief importance is
that Greek is the language in which the New Testament, as we have it, was
written, whatever its sources may have been. This Greek was not the language
of careful scholars: it was the current speech of the period and locality. Christi-
anity had its beginnings in a society in which at least a fair proportion of the
population spoke both Aramaic and Greek. Many converts had been familiar
from childhood with the language of the Septuagint,'a document which had
been translated in great part from Hebrew. Undoubtedly Semitic idiom had to
some extent influenced their speech, from one source or another, but the
language they spoke was Greek, not Aramaic, or even translated Aramaic. A
modern parallel is the English spoken by the negroes in the south of the United
States. In accent, intonation, and idiom it is very different from English as it
is spoken by any other people, but it is English and not an African dialect.
Moreover, subtle shades of meaning, achieved by slightly varying an ex-
pression, are not the ordinary language of every day, nor are they so understood
by ordinary people. A convert knew perfectly well that when he said that he
had been baptized in the name of Jesus he meant that someone had said ‘I
baptize you in the name of Jesus’ or something similar, and that in conse-
quence he had attained the way of Salvation; but it is very hard to believe
that he would have distinguished between eis rd dvoua to express the aim of
baptism and év 7G dvéuart to imply the words of the formula which had
been used.
1 Running parallel with this belief in the power of Jesus’ Name there is
also apparent in the Gospel of Mark that belief in the power of Faith which
persisted and grew stronger, while the other died. In v. 34, ix. 23 f. and other
places the belief of the sick person (or in one case of the demoniac’s father) was
at least partially responsible for the cure and necessary for it. In vi. 4 ff.
Jesus was actively hindered by the unbelief of the Galileans, cal ovx édévaro
éxel Torjoat ovdeulav Sivamy, although he was able to heal a few individuals who
presumably did believe in him. In xi. 23 ff. it is again wloris which is asserted
to be the power by which mountains may be moved.
xvi. 16 ff. gives the later, developed theory, in which the man who believes
xI THE NAME, BAPTISM, ETC. 125
the synagogue forbade the use of the Name of Jesus to exorcise or to
heal: it was effective, but it was wrong.
The theory is the same as that found in various Hebrew documents,
some of which long antedate and some of which are contemporary with
Jesus. The names of angels had magical power. The name of God him-
self was much too sacred for this purpose, and it was blasphemy to utter
it, but its power if pronounced or written was not doubted. By it God
had created heaven. Inscribed on Moses’ staff it divided the waters of
the Red Sea. Spoken by him it killed the Egyptian. Isaiah, threatened
by Manasseh, used it to raise about him a cedar—though the sequel
was curious, for Manasseh sawed through the cedar and thus killed
Isaiah.
So far there is no difficulty. Jesus had the power to heal and to exorcise.
This was also incorporated in his Name. But whence did his power come ?
What name did he use? None. He expels devils and commands men
to be healed; or he lays his hands on them and they are healed. The
priests and the scribes queried this: €v roia éfovcig.} tatra Troveis ; 7) Tis
go wey tiv eLoveiay tTatvTnv iva tatTa mwoujs; (Mk. xi. 28.) Kal
COapPyOnrav amravres, GoTe cuvénteiv adto’s A€yovtas Ti eotw
tovT0; didax7 Kawi Kat e€ovoliav Kal Tots rvevpace Tois dxabdprots
emiTdooe, Kal braKkovovow avt@. (Mk. i. 27.) He acted with ‘ authority,’
that is of his own power, not by the use of the name of any other
being.”
Nowhere does Mark tell of the disciples exorcising or healing in the
Name of Jesus, but in iii, 14 f. Jesus eroinoev SuWdexa . . . iva azo-
otéAAy adbrods knptooev Kal exe eEovoiav exkBddrAcw Ta Saipdvia,
and is baptized can cast out devils in the Name of Jesus and heal the sick by
laying his hands on them. Mark, however, had not achieved this fusion and
a general view of his account must bring out inconsistencies. It is probable
that in the beginning the dominant belief was that anyone could do the things
which Jesus did by uttering his Name, but that the current of thought which
emphasized the power of Faith was already widely diffused. In Mark the two
run side by side and unreconciled : perhaps heritages from two different sources,
but equally possibly merely the reflection on a not too critical mind of different
beliefs in the contemporary world.
1 This is not the place to discuss the character of this éfovcla, or whether
it was thought of as mvedua, but it is worth remembering in this connexion
that when the woman in Mark v. 25 was cured merely by touching Jesus’
garment he knew of it immediately, not because he saw or felt her touch but
because émiyvols év éauvr@ rhv €& adbrod Sivamw éfeodcav. This is clearly
a loss of strength of some sort, parallel to the loss of strength which would
come from lifting a burden.
2 What did Jesus himself think of as the source of or reason for this power ?
Did he believe it was due to his prayers? Cf. Mk. ix. 29 and xi. 24. Or was
it because at the Baptism he had been specially appointed by God as his Son?
Mark apparently not only held the latter view, but also thought that Jesus
did so. The gift of the Spirit made Jesus Son of God, and enabled him to
triumph over demons.
Exorcism
and
Hisorcism.
Other uses
of the
Name.
126 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
and in vi. 7 it is said xal édidov avtois efovciavy Tov mvevpdtwv TOV
axa0dprwv, in consequence of which in vi. 12 f. the apostles went out and
exnprgav iva petavodor kal Sarpdvia woAAd e&€Badrov, Kal iAeupov
éXaip? rodXods dppwatovs Kat eOepdrevor.
According to Mark, then, the disciples were authorized by Jesus to do
just the things which he was doing—preach, exorcise, and heal. Although
it is not said that they did these things in the Name of Jesus, they at least
received from him the authority to do them, and they were able to work
the miracles which Jesus performed as they had previously been unable
to do. Either Mark thought of them as having received from Jesus the
power which he had by some such direct transference as the laying on of
his hands, or as doing their works in his Name in the same manner in which
the unauthorized man in Mk. ix.did. The latter is the more probable view
when the various stories in Acts, where healing is done in the Name of
Jesus, are compared with the statements in Mark.
Since healing and the casting out of devils are so constantly linked the
question arises whether they were not considered as in reality the same
thing. Was all illness due to the presence of evil spirits ? Or was it
perhaps necessary in some cases to give to the person who was ill a good
spirit—eisorcism—rather than to exorcise an evil spirit? If this be so it
may solve the question raised above as to why Jesus felt power depart from
him when he inadvertently healed the woman. It was not that she had an
evil spirit which must be driven out, but a good spirit entered into her to
perform the cure. What, also, is the relation of sinfulness to illness and
to evil spirits ?_ Jesus himself asks his critics whether it is easier to say to
the man sick of the palsy “Thy sins be forgiven thee,” or to say “ Arise,
take up thy bed and walk.” The question is merely a verbal “score” if
there be no connexion between sin and disease.
Somewhat different from the other uses of the Name are the references
to persecutions which will be inflicted on Jesus’ followers ‘ for my name’s
sake’ and to those who are received or benefited ‘in my name.’ The
Greek phrases, like the English, do not differ from those used in speaking
of the use of the Name for exorcism or baptism, but it is improbable that
here they have any magical significance. ‘ Persecuted for my name’s
sake’ means that Jesus thought that those who were known to be his
followers would on that account be persecuted. It is even possible that
by the time when Mark was writing the term ‘ Christian’ was already in
use and influenced the phrasing of such passages. Heitmiiller believes
that James ii. 7 ov avtol BAaadnpoter 7d Kaddv dvopa 7d erixAnOev ep’
ipas is a specific reference to those who have had the name ‘Jesus’
pronounced over them in baptism, but it seems unnecessary to assume that
it means more than that Christians were already called Xpurriavoi. No
reference to baptism need be seen beyond that contained in the assump-
tion that people who were called Christians had for the most part been
baptized.
1 Cf. James v. 14 dodeve? ris év duty; mpooxadecdcOw tods mpecBurépous Tijs
éxxAnolas, Kal mpocevédcOwoar én’ airdv, ddelaytes abrov év TH dvduari Tod
Kuplov.
XI THE NAME, BAPTISM, ETC. 127
The exact meaning intended in the passages dealing with men who are
received by others ‘ in my name ’ is clarified by the parallel in Mt. x. 41-42:
6 Sex opevos tpopitnv eis dvopa mpopitov pucOdv mpopijrov Anpperas
Kal 6 Sex dpevos dixavov eis bvopa. dtxaiov pao Dov duxaiouv Anjpyerat. kal
ds av motion éva TOV pupav ToOUTwY Tori pLov Yuxpod povov eis dvopa
pabnrod, apiv A€yw tpiv od ph drodérn Tov picOdv adrov. This is
only an elaborate way of saying “he that receiveth a prophet because
he is a prophet,” or “he that receiveth a prophet because he honours a
prophet.” In the same way Mk. ix. 37 and similar passages means :
** Whosoever shall receive one of such children for love (or honour) of me.”
So also the cry at the triumphal entry: evAoynpévos 6 épxdpevos ev
évéparte Kupiov.
The Gospel of Matthew.—Matthew reflects the same views as does Mark The Name
in regard to the power inherent in the Name of Jesus. He omits the story '" M*tthew.
| of the man who was working miracles by it without authority, but makes
the same assumptions in vii. 20 ff.: dpaye amd TOv KaprOv avTov émt-
yvocerGe adtods. ov was 6 A€eywv por Kupue Kipie eioeAevoreTar eis TIHV
Baoireiav tov otpavOv, GAN oO Toy 6 OeAnpa TOU mat pés pov TOU
év Tots ovpavois. moXAoi é épototy pooe ev éxeivy TH PEPE Kipre xipre,
ov T) oH dvdpart erpopyteboaper, kal T) oO ovdpart Sarpdvea
a€eBddAopev kal TO o@ Ovdpate Suvdpers worAas é eroujoapev; Kal TOTE
dporoynow aidtois dtu ovdérote eyvwv ipas’ droxwpeite am Euod ot
épyaopevor tiv dvopiav.. It is again clear, as in Mark, that there
is no question of the efficacy of the use of Jesus’ name; but it is
also clear that its successful use does not necessarily mean that the user
will be worthy to enter the kingdom of heaven.
On the other hand, the theory of the power which Jesus himself pos-
sessed is more fully elaborated. He makes the claim (xi. 27) rdvra prot
TapedoOn vd Tov watpds ov: for Matthew the primary fact was that he
was Son of God, and to that fact his power was directly due.2 Mark
tells the story of the descent of the Spirit at the Baptism and it can be
inferred that he regarded this possession of the Spirit as the source of
Jesus’ power. Matthew more definitely states this in the discussion in
xii. 18-28: (dod 6 rais pov dv ypérwa" 6 ayarnrds pov bv edddKnoer 1)
Yux} pov. Onow 7d rvedpd pov ér avdrov, Kal Kpiow tots eOvecww
amayyeAe . . . ei 5 ev rvetpate Oeod éyd éxBddrdAw Ta Satpdvia, apa
épOacev ef’ ipas 7) BaciXrela Tov Geov.*
This power he is represented as delegating to his disciples on two
1 There is no parallel to this passage in Luke, and it is therefore doubtful
whether it is taken from Q. Perhaps it reflects the troubles caused in the
Church by false prophets. Cf. 1 John ii. 18, iv. 4.
2 That God is the ‘ Father’ of men—not only, but especially, of Jesus—
is characteristic of Matthew, see Vol. I. pp. 401 ff.
® The vioi budv in vs. 27 may refer to Jesus’ followers and the reasoning be
that if Jesus casts out devils through the Devil his followers are possessed of
Satan, but if he casts them out through the spirit of God which is in him, he has
passed that spirit on to his disciples and the Kingdom of God is therefore
among them.
128 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
different occasions. The first is the parallel to the Marcan story, when
during his own ministry he sends out the Apostles. Here he gives them
the power to cast out devils and to heal, and sends them forth to do
these things and to preach that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.
The second is the command laid on the Twelve by the risen Jesus to
go forth and make disciples, and is found in the last three verses of the
gospel, the trustworthiness of which is very doubtful. But whoever wrote
them meant to make it plain that it was because all power in heaven and in
earth had been given to Jesus that he could pass on to the disciples the
authorization to go forth and teach the nations and baptize them.
The Name The Gospel of Luke.—Luke holds the same views in regard to the
se power of Jesus’ Name as do the other synoptic gospels, but adds one im-
portant point. He clearly states what has been assumed in the stories told
in the others, that when Jesus sends forth his disciples the power which
he gives them is exercised through the use of his Name. In x. | ff. he
tells of the sending forth of seventy, as well as twelve, and the seventy
return saying with joy, Kipue, cai ra Sawdvia trotdooeras ypiv ev TO
ovépati cov.
One of the points which are very difficult to understand, both in Luke
and in Mark, is how the power given to the disciples by Jesus differed
from that possessed by the man who used his Name without having any
authorization to do so. Or was there no difference in that respect ? Was
it only the command to spread the teaching of Jesus which was the
important part of the mission, both to Jesus himself and to the man who
told the story ? This is one of those tantalizing questions, an answer to
which would be so valuable for an understanding of the period when
the gospels were written, but dealing with a subject so obvious to the
writers that it was never raised to the level of discussion or explanation,
so that it will probably never be answered.
Up to this point the evidence for the beliefs held about the Name of
Jesus and the uses to which it was put is fairly simple and consistent, and
does not in kind go beyond those expressed in earlier or contemporary
Hebrew documents. But with the Pauline Epistles and Acts there is a
change. This may be due to currents of thought which began to influence
Christianity when it spread into the cosmopolitan world of the great cities
of Asia Minor, Egypt, and Greece, where the Jews were only one foreign
element in a mixed population which had many varying traditions behind
it*; or the change may be due to Paul himself and to his development
of the ideas prevalent among the Christians of his day. This raises a
problem which constantly confronts the student of the New Testament :
Should the Pauline Epistles, which were certainly written first and contain
1 The “succession” is as clear as when Clement of Rome says that Jesus
depends from God and the apostles from Jesus.
2 The sources of the Synoptic Gospels, or at least the events which are their
theme, are earlier than the writing of the Pauline Epistles. This accounts for
their more primitive ideas in regard to the Name, and also for the difference
in the theories reflected in the Gospel of Luke and in Acts.
x1 THE NAME, BAPTISM, ETC. 129
ideas that must to some extent have been familiar to the writer of Acts, be
considered first? Or should Acts, which portrays a period of Christian
development before the conversion of Paul, which is in some ways more
primitive than that reflected in the Epistles of Paul? In this case it
seems better to begin with the Epistles. It is very probable that Paul’s
beliefs were already spreading over the Christian world, or perhaps that
the ideas which influenced Paul had also to some extent shaped the
beliefs of the majority of Greek-speaking Christians. In either case it
seems more useful to study what little Paul has to say on the subject
before going on to consider the mass of evidence in the Acts—evidence
greater in quantity and more specific than all that has gone before.
The Pauline Epistles—These introduce us into a different world from The Pauline
that of the Synoptics. This is due in part to the different purpose for which Bence
they were intended, and mere omission must not be regarded in the same
light as in an historical writing. But when all allowance has been made for
this, it remains clear that Paul had a different Weltanschauwng from Mark.
The Epistles constantly refer to the believer as united to Christ, and Mysticism.
it is this sense of the identity of the Christ and the Christian and its im-
portance as the basis of a changed life which is often called Paul’s mysti-
cism. This is a correct statement if it be correctly understood. The
central point in all ‘ mystical’ experience is that it gives those who enjoy
it a sense of unity, whereas almost all sensuous experience heightens the
perception of difference and individuality. But this experience, like
all others, is criticized and explained by the intellect, and always in terms
of the theories as to Man, God, the Universe, and Reality which it happens
to hold. Mysticism is an experience common to the race, though not to
all members of it; it is always a sense of freedom, of lifted barriers and
achieved unity; but it has been explained in many different and even
contradictory ways. To Paul it seemed due to the relation between
himself and the risen Lord—the Spirit—but it is necessary to distinguish
between the reality of Paul’s mystical experience and the truth of the
intellectual explanation which he accepted. The former is doubtless the
more important, but its discussion lies outside the present note. Similarly,
Paul’s intellectual explanation must be judged as part of his general
Weltanschauung, and a criticism of this cannot now be undertaken. For
the present all that is intended is a statement of Paul’s beliefs, not a
criticism of them.
The general view which seems to underlie Paul’s theory of his own Mysticism
mystical experience—and he himself at least certainly did not distinguish Se
this theory from the experience itself—is much more closely associated with Sct
the Jewish doctrine of spirits and their power of ‘obsessing’ human beings ;
than it is with any Greek philosophy, which latter seems to have affected
the language of the Epistles only slightly and the thought not at all.
Just as the Spirit of the Lord possessed a prophet, or an evil spirit pos-
sessed a demoniac, so the Lord—who is the Spirit—possessed Paul and
other Christians, and in such a way that henceforth everything they did
and the whole course of their lives was dominated and controlled by the
VOL. V K
Epistles.
The
Mystery
cults,
130 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
Lord, not by themselves. ‘I live no longer,” says Paul, “ but Christ in
me.” To obtain this possession by the Lord or by the Spirit and so become
a ‘new creature’ was the most important thing. It was accomplished
by faith and by baptism. It was the reverse of exorcism, but just as
miraculous, and might perhaps be called ‘ eisorcism.’
It is natural to expect that the Name of the Lord should play a
considerable part in Paul’s writings. Investigation confirms the expecta-
tion, though perhaps not so much as might have been anticipated. There
is no mention anywhere of exorcism or of cures in the Name of Jesus.
This does not mean necessarily that Paul disbelieved in them or did not
practise them, but that they were not points which he felt it necessary to
impress on the people whom he was addressing. It is quite possible that
this is simply an indication that they were taken for granted and were
not, at that time, a subject of controversy. But though exorcism is not
mentioned the Name often appears.
In Philippians ii. 9-11 it is said that God has given Jesus 7d dvoya 7d
trép Tav Ovopa, iva ev TH dvopate’Inood wav yovv Kdpily érovpaviwv
kal érvyeiwv Kat KataxGoviwv, kal rica yhoooa eEoporoyjorntat drt
Kvptos Inoovs Xpirris cis Sdéav Ocot ratpds. The name given to Jesus
is obviously Kvpios,} ‘ Lord,’ which was ‘above every name,’ because in.
the LXX it was the Greek equivalent of ‘Jahveh.’ The meaning is that
God gave his own name to Jesus.
In Rom. x. 9, he says: “If you confess the word? with your mouth ”
(referring to Deut. xxx. 14) “that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your
heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” The
phrase ‘ the name’ is not actually mentioned, but it is surely implied by the
‘confess with your mouth,’ and p7jya is used here owing to the influence
of the LXX instead of the dvoya of Philippians.
The most significant point in these two passages is that they ascribe
power to the Name of Jesus without mentioning baptism. Possibly,
though very far from certainly, Paul is thinking of baptism and its relation
to the phrase ‘ Lord Jesus,’ but in any case it is clear that the Name is not
limited in its efficacy to its use in baptism.
What was the origin of the idea involved? Salvation by identifica-
tion with Jesus, whether through baptism or through faith, is in a different
category from anything found in the synoptic gospels. A popular solution
is to say that it was probably taken over from the mystery religions
which were so widely spread at that period. Generally speaking, however,
it is easier in the present state of knowledge to use the accurate informa-
tion which we have about some phases of early Christianity to explain the
few remaining accounts of the mysteries than to bring any knowledge of
the mysteries to bear on the interpretation of Christianity. It is known,
however, that in Egyptian burials there was a re-enactment of the burial of
Osiris, and that each corpse bore his name and was thus identified with him,
was in point of fact an Osiris and supposed to live, as he does, in the Lower
World. It is not justifiable to assume that this influenced Paul’s develop-
1 Cf. Mt. xxiv. 5, and Luke xxi. 8, where ‘my name’ means ‘ Xpicrés.’
2 BClem4! read 7d pjua . . . bre Kiros Inoods.
xI THE NAME, BAPTISM, ETC. 131
ment of Christian theology; but he certainly lived in a world in which
many similar beliefs were common, so that combined with the already
widespread opinion that the utterance of the Name of Jesus would
accomplish the miracles of healing and exorcism which he himself had
performed, they may have led Paul to the conclusion that not only did the
other powers which Jesus possessed pass to those men who used his Name,
but that his power over death was also conveyed to them.
Moreover the further conviction was perhaps held by Paul, certainly by Paul and
the Catholic Church, that not only was the pronouncing of the Name of *?ts™
Jesus capable of saving men, but that quite especially to have it pro-
nounced over them in baptism did so. There are only four passages in the
Pauline Epistles which can be cited as definite evidence for Paul’s views
on baptism—and of these one is the obscure reference to baptism for the
dead in 1 Cor. xv. 29. In spite of this, however, it is possible to recon-
struct some part of his beliefs.
In 1 Cor. i. 11 ff. it is assumed that those who were baptized in the
Name of Jesus belonged to Him—were Christians. Paul’s concern is
the denial that he had baptized in his own name—that is, made
‘Paulines.’ If the disciples were using the Name of Jesus in baptism
to distinguish themselves from the followers of John, this is the sort of
accusation which enemies might have brought,—that they were splitting
into futile little groups headed by individual leaders. There is no need
to perceive in this discussion a belief in ‘ sacramental’ baptism, although
there is nothing to contradict it. Nor need a reference to a definite
formula be understood, although the parallelism ‘ Paul’—‘ Christ’ and
then ‘in my own name’ is surely significant. Paul’s curiously slighting
disclaimer of a mission to baptize, a few verses below, gives the impres-
sion that in any case he did not at this time consider baptism as of
great importance.
In 1 Cor. vi. 11 washing év t@ dvdpate tot Kupiov “Inoot Xpurrod
must refer to baptism. Perhaps this is the baptismal formula and the
next phrase, é€v T@ rvevuati TOU Feov jpov,! refers to the gift of the Spirit
which is the result of baptism and is the sanctification.
Finally, in Rom. vi. 3ff., baptism is the means of uniting the
Christian with Jesus Christ in his death and in his resurrection.?
Such a baptism is definitely sacramental. That of John was a baptism
unto repentance, and did not assume that it at all changed the nature of
the penitent or had any direct connexion with salvation. Jesus himself
probably did not baptize, but after his death his disciples may have done
so and used his Name in order to distinguish their converts or penitents
from those of John and his disciples. Of this stage, however, there is no
evidence, and it is a long step from it to sacramental baptism. It is a
step which might well have been made by a man who connected the
1 It is just possible that this is a unique reference to a double baptismal
formula, but I think it very improbable. :
2 A reference to the baptismal formula has also been seen in Rom. x. 9.
If so, it is again the simple ‘in the Name of the Lord Jesus’ (cf. Acts ii. 21).
Paul was certainly not acquainted with the Trinitarian form.
Acts.
Acts iii.-iv.
132 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
outward ceremony of baptism and the consequent sloughing off of his
own sinfulness with the inward experience of unity with Jesus; but if so,
it is another instance of how often in the history of religion similarity of
phrase bridges a deep diversity of thought.
The Acts.—In the early chapters of this book, and particularly in
those usually ascribed to the Jerusalem source A, the story is told of a
great struggle between the Disciples and the Jewish authorities, which
centred in the use of the Name of Jesus.1 The account begins with
the story of the lame man at the Beautiful Gate whom Peter cured
év TO ovdpare Inoot Xpwrot tot Na(wpaiov (iii. 6), and his explanation
to the marvelling crowd that it was not his own power but that of the
Name of Jesus which had worked the miracle.”
The excitement which followed was made the pretext for the arrest
of Peter and John and an inquiry into the source of their power, but
the true reason was that the authorities were disturbed because they
taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from
the dead. Doubtless it was this which provoked Peter’s rather lengthy
answer, not only that they had healed the man in the Name of Jesus
Christ of Nazareth, but that ov« éorw év ddAA@ ovdevi % TwTnpia, ode
yip dvoud éoriv Erepov bd Tov otpavody 7d Sedopéevov év avOpwrois év @
dei cwOjvar jas. This may refer to the cure of the lame man who
éowOn, it may mean eschatological safety, or it may imply salvation by
regeneration. There is nothing in the context to suggest the last, but
the other two are probable, and the transition from one to the other is
bridged by ambiguous phrases (cwrypia, cwOjvat) in a manner which is
characteristically Lucan. The Sanhedrin could not fight the logic of
facts so far as to punish the Apostles, but illogically enough issued a
command to them to abandon the use of the Name. The Apostles
took no heed and they were again brought before the council, to
receive the same injunction, “and they departed from the presence of
the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for
his name. And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased
not to teach and preach Jesus Christ’ (v. 41 f.).
This is the last heard of this conflict, except for a possible reference -
to it in the story of Ananias, who protests to the Lord that he has
heard much of Paul’s evil treatment of Christians ‘and here he hath
authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name”
(ix. 14). But if there is no more about the struggle over the use of the
Name, stories of cures by it are scattered throughout the book. The
1 The probability that this picture is true to history is shown in the stories
in the Talmud, which indicate that the controversy persisted to a much
later date. (See Vol. I. pp. 319 and 426.)
2 The part played in this cure by ‘faith’ is very obscure, and in iii. 16 it
is certainly not clear whether Peter or the lame man was possessed of the
‘faith in his name’ referred to. The lame man does not seem to have been
aware of what might befall him when he approached Peter. In any case,
the Name of Jesus was the agency by which the cure was effected.
xI THE NAME, BAPTISM, ETC. 133
disciples heal and exorcise in the Name of Jesus,! but the most important
and curious passage is the story of the sons of Scaeva.? They were Acts xix.
exorcists * who took it upon themselves to drive out evil spirits in ‘the ©
name of Jesus whom Paul preacheth.’ The demons recognized the names
both of Jesus: and of Paul, but not the right of these exorcists to use
them, and they therefore fell upon the sons of Scaeva, injured them, and
drove them away. That is, in this case the unauthorized use of the Name
of Jesus did not succeed. This is remarkable and rare. In the history of
the magical use of names authorization is seldom an element. Usually
the Name works ex opere operato. It would appear that, contrary to
Jesus’ example, the Christian community of this period resented the use
of his Name by any but themselves, and did not believe in its efficacy unless
supported by Christian faith.
But, although Luke narrates these cures and exorcisms in the Name ane Name
of Jesus, its connexion with salvation and its connexion with baptism 5, er BE ry
interest him far more deeply. Yet it is no easier to find a simple answer to
the question of what Luke regarded as the means of salvation than to that
of what he meant by salvation. In iv. 16 f. and in ii. 21 (a quotation)
it is, however, achieved through the Name of Jesus or ‘ the Lord.’
1 ix. 33f., xvi. 16 ff. Cf. also xiv. 8f. and xxviii. 7 ff. In the former the
faith of the man healed is the effective instrument—but is this not faith in
Paul’s power? In xxviii. 7 ff. Paul cures Publius’s father by praying and
laying his hands on him, just as Jesus did in some cases. 2 xix. 13 ff.
% Whether they were Jewish or not, whether they were seven or less in
number, and whether or not Scaeva was a high priest, are points immaterial to
the present purpose. See also Addit. Note 23. But the Western text here
differs from the Neutral on one point important for this discussion. D reads
émixaheto Oat 7d dvoua, and the simplicity of the formula is in contrast to the
tendency to expansion in Codex Bezae. It may be noted, however, that the
Western text does not use dvoua in any essentially different manner from the
Neutral or Ecclesiastical texts. The following points are of interest :
(i.) In ii. 38 év 7G dvduare "Inood Xpicrod becomes év 7G dvduate 700 Kuplov
"Inood Xporo in D Cyprian but év 7¢ dvéuare "Inood in Irenaeus, which may
be original. (Cf. the textual facts in Mark i. 1.)
(ii.) In vi. 8, in describing the miraculous activities of Stephen, D and
Syr-hl™s add that he did these miracles 5:4 rod dvéuaros xuplov "Inoot Xpiorod,
and the African Latin (h) has the simpler in nomine Iesu Christi.
(iii.) In ix. 17 the Neutral text reads cai ériGeis éw adrdv ras xetpas ele
xth., but h (D is missing) reads et inposuit ei manum in nomine Iesu Christi.
(iv.) In ix. 40 Syr-hl™s Cyp add in nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi to
TdB.0a avdornh.
(v.) In x. 48 D reads év r@ dvéuart rod Kuplov "Inood Xpiorod.
(vi.) In xiv. 10 the Western reading adds col déyw év 7G dvduare "Inood
Xpicrod before dvdornht.
(vii.) In xviii. 8 (D) Syr-hl™s etc. add did rod dvduaros ro0 Kuplov judy
"Inood Xpiorod after or before xat éBarrtt{ovro.
(viii.) In xix. 5 D Syr-hlms read els 7d 8voua Kuplov ’Inoot Xpiorod els dderw
dmapriav.
Baptism.
134 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
After the gift of the Spirit was given on the Day of Pentecost, Peter
explained to the crowd that the glossolalia was the fulfilment of the well-
known eschatological prophecy of Joel which ends “‘ whosoever shall call on
the name of the Lord shall be saved.” ‘ The Lord,’ in the intention of Joel,
is of course Jahveh, the god of Israel; but it is at least open to doubt whether
Luke was not influenced by the growing custom of calling Jesus ‘ the Lord ’
and referring to him all passages in the LXX which allude to xipuos.
Moreover, in the sequel, when the audience ask Peter what they must do
he says, “‘ Repent, and be baptized each one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ for the remission of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the
Holy Spirit.” It is possible that the reference to baptism is editorial (see
Vol. I. pp. 339 ff.), but if so it is all the more important as illustrating
Luke’s own opinion. We are clearly confronted with an evolution of
thought in which eschatological salvation, baptism ‘in the name,’ and the
gift of the Spirit are concerned. The final step, which makes baptism effect
a sacramental change of nature as in Catholic Christianity, is not taken, but
it is imminent. Similarly, it is not actually stated that baptism confers
the Spirit, but a close connexion between the two is implied and baptism is
at least a pre-requisite.
At Philippi when the jailor came to Pdul and Silas+ to ask what he
must do to be saved, they answered, ‘‘ Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ
and thou shalt be saved and thy house.” This is the second of the re-
quisites for salvation which Paul quotes in Rom. x. 8 ff., and it may well
be that Luke also believed that both faith and calling on the Lord were
necessary, but he does not mention them together. It is, however, true that
the jailor and his family were baptized as soon as Paul had preached to
them, so that salvation is in practice, if not verbally, equated with baptism.
Similarly in chap. xv., in Peter’s speech to the Church at the
Apostolic Council, it is said that “ not through the Law of Moses but by
the grace of the Lord Jesus shall they be saved.” Here too there is no
reference to baptism. It is of course possible that Luke and Paul mean
that for baptism (which gives salvation) faith is a necessary preliminary.
This would have been the Catholic position at a later time, but it is signifi-
cant that neither Acts nor the genuine Epistles* ever state clearly that
salvation is achieved through baptism: belief in Jesus, or calling on his
Name, are the requisites.
Thus we come to the central problem of baptism in the Name of Jesus,
as referred to in Acts. What powers or privileges did it confer? The
evidence is definite but curiously inconsistent. Belief in Jesus (or in his
Name), baptism, the remission of sins, the laying on of Apostolic hands,
and the reception of the Spirit seem to have formed a single complex of
associated ideas, any one of which might in any single narrative be either
omitted or emphasized.
Earlier evidence for Christian baptism is almost non-existent. The
only reference to it in the Synoptics is at the end of the first gospel,
‘and if these verses were written by Matthew it is evidence that at that
1 xvi. 308. 2 Contrast Titus iii. 5.
x1 THE NAME, BAPTISM, ETC. 135
period in the early history of the Church it was already believed to be an
institution which had been founded by Jesus himself. But since they
are almost certainly one of the latest parts of the Gospel of Matthew, it
becomes necessary to explain the silence of the gospels on the subject
of this most important of the uses made of the Name of Jesus. Jesus
himself, of his own power, did the other things which the disciples later
did in his Name, but there is no record of his ever having baptized
anyone. Why then does baptism appear so early and in so important
away? Did Jesus himself baptize his followers or others, in spite of
the silence of the gospels, or must the origins of the practice be looked
for not in him but in other currents in the contemporary world ?
In the opening verses of Acts it is explained that the followers of Jesus
did not need the water-baptism of John, but were to receive the spirit-
baptism of his. successor, as John himself had prophesied. After ‘ holy
spirit’ had come upon them they would receive ‘power’ and would then be
witnesses to Jesus throughout the earth. All this Jesus is represented as
telling them before the Ascension ; there is no hint of baptism in his Name.
Then comes Pentecost, and each is touched with a tongue of fire and receives
the Holy Spirit. The Christians, at least according to Peter (ii. 33), received
this spirit directly from Jesus, who in turn had it from the Father. Thus
far there is complete agreement with the gospels—a continuation and fulfil-
ment of their story. But immediately comes a new note. Peter had been
explaining these things to an audience which had‘ seen but not shared
the events of Pentecost, and aroused by his words they ask him and
the other apostles what they are to do. “Then Peter said unto them,
Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for
the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For
the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are distant,
whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.”
What is the explanation of this apparent contradiction ? It is so strik-
ing that it seems hardly possible that even Luke could have ignored it.
Probably it did not strike him as a contradiction,—which may have been
because the crowd Paul was addressing was primarily non-Jewish. Luke
may have assumed the necessity of water-baptism only as a preliminary for
Gentile converts, not for Jews such as those who shared the gift of the
Spirit at Pentecost.2, ‘The promise’ obviously refers to the gift of the
Spirit which was to come after baptism—and baptism merely served to put
the Gentiles in the same position for its reception as Jews. This view has
much in its favour. Baptism of converts as a ceremonial preliminary was
a Jewish custom. It had no sacramental efficacy, but neither had the
baptism which Peter advocates. This, like John’s baptism, was for the
remission of sins. The pronouncing of the Name of Jesus may merely
1 See Addit. Notes 7 and 10.
2 There are no references to baptism in that part of Acts credited to the
Jerusalem source A, but it is full of the controversy over the use of the
Name of Jesus in other connexions. Those things which were direct con-
tinuations of Jesus’ practice, cures and exorcisms, were the source of the
trouble.
Baptism
and the
Spirit.
136 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
indicate the sect of Judaism—for Christianity has not yet become another
religion—or may be the effective magical formula.
The rest of the book to some extent supports the view that Gentiles
were to be baptized with water in the Name of Jesus. In ii. 38 ff. there is
the double probability that those addressed were not Jews, and that the
reference to baptism is editorial (see Vol. I. pp. 239 ff. and Additional Notes
7and 10). In chapter viii. the Samaritans and the Ethiopian eunuch * are
baptized by Philip. In chapter x. it was to baptize Gentiles that Peter
called for water, pointing out to the Jews that he could not very well avoid
baptizing them (i.e. indicating ceremonially that they were proselytes), since
the Holy Spirit had already been given to them as well as to the circumcised.
And in chapter xix. the Ephesians were baptized by Paul.
There remains the story of Paul’s baptism by Ananias. This is men-
tioned in two accounts of the conversion (ix. 18, xxii. 16) but not in the
third. Paul of course was not a Gentile, and that he was baptized at all is
part of the general difficulty of the episode of Ananias of Damascus (see
Addit. Note 15).
In most of the accounts baptism and the gift of the Spirit are closely,
though not necessarily causally, connected. ‘Then Peter said unto
them, repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Ghost.” This is the norm from which the other accounts vary in one
detail or another, but the broad lines of which they all follow. If this
is editorial it is Luke’s own belief and the variations are due to the
stories told by his sources. But the variation is, after all, not very
great. In x. 43 it is the Name, and belief in Jesus, not baptism, which
give remission of sins. In the story of the conversion of the Samaritans
the gift of the Spirit followed, not on baptism by Philip in the Name of
the Lord Jesus, but on the laying on of the hands of Peter and John.
«* And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the Apostles’ hands
the Holy Spirit was given he offered them money.” In ix. 14f. the
sequence is not clear, but Ananias lays his hands on Paul and announces
that he will receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. Paul’s
sight returns and immediately he arises and is baptized. In x. 44 ff.
the Gentiles first receive the Spirit while Peter is speaking and are then
baptized, for “‘can any man forbid water, that these should not be
baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?”’?
In these stories a stage preliminary to the sacramental baptism of the
Church may be discerned. Jesus had the Holy Spirit—the use of his Name
enables it to be conveyed ; but Acts still makes the distinction: baptism in
the Name of Jesus is the preliminary to the recognition of a proselyte ; the
gift of the Spirit (usually given by the laying on of hands) is a separate
thing. The two, however, are so closely associated that they are often
merely two parts of one ceremony.
If at the beginning of the Apostolic age Jewish converts to Christianity
1 It is, of course, possible that he may already have been a Jewish
proselyte. Cf. pp. 418 f.
2 Of. xi. 15 ff. and xv. 8f.
xI THE NAME, BAPTISM, ETC. 137
had no water-baptism, what had been their preparation for the gift of the
Spirit ? Probably the original requirement was simply belief in Jesus :
** and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which you
could not be justified through the law of Moses.” But already with the
baptism of Paul, if he was baptized, the precedent of baptism for everyone
was being established. Insistence on baptism in the Name of Jesus as the
source of the gift of the Spirit, not the preliminary to it, completes the cycle.
Acts xix. 1-6 shows that the point of view of Luke when he wrote the
second part of Acts, or possibly of the source which he followed, was ap-
proximating more closely to that of the Catholic Church. The story tells
how Paul found in Ephesus disciples—which must mean Christians—who,
to his surprise, had not received the Holy Spirit. His question, “ To
what then were you baptized ?” shows that he associated baptism and
the gift of the Spirit. The reply of the Ephesians was that they had been
baptized with John’s baptism. Paul then explained that this was in-
sufficient, baptized them in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and “ when
Paul laid his hands on them” they received the Holy Spirit. The story
is tantalizingly obscure. There are three factors in it: baptism in the
Name of the Lord Jesus, the laying on of the hands of an apostle, and the
gift of the Spirit. The actual form of the preceding verses giving Paul’s
inquiry about the Spirit and baptism suggests the later Johannine and
Catholic view, but the reference to the laying on of apostolic hands is
reminiscent of the story of Peter and the Samaritan converts.
The ‘ laying on of hands’ is not only a well-known Jewish custom, The laying
but frequent in all ages and in all countries. It implies the passage of ° ° hands
power by the contact of one person with another. It is therefore common
as a means of healing,! and by a natural transition of thought passed on to
the imparting of special functions, or finally of supernatural power. Thus
it was the gesture used in blessing, and especially at the ordination of a
Rabbi (the Seminkha). It is this last which has often been regarded as an
analogue of Christian baptism and ordination. There are apparently a
few passages in Rabbinic literature which suggest that the Seminkha con-
ferred the gift of inspiration, but, though this highly controversial question
can only be discussed properly by those who have special knowledge of
Rabbinic literature, it seems probable that the Rabbis did not claim the
gift of inspiration, and cannot have claimed to transmit it.
In the Synoptic Gospels the laying on of hands is described as a means
of healing employed by Jesus in Mark i. 40 ff., v. 23, vi. 5, viii. 22 ff.? and
in parallel passages, and also in the Lucan summary in Lukeiv. 40. It also
appears in Mark x. 13-16 and Luke xxiv. 50 as an act of blessing.
In Acts ix. 17 Ananias cures Paul of blindness by putting his hands on
him, and in xxviii. 8 Paul heals the father of Publius by the same means.
This apostolic use of the ‘laying on of hands’ as a means of healing is
reflected in the spurious conclusion of Mark (xvi. 18), where Jesus is made
1 Its effectiveness is doubtless due to the strong suggestion of well-being
made by contact with a healthy and highly vitalized person.
2 Mk. i. 31 may also be an example.
The
Johannine
theory.
138 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
to promise the Eleven that “ they shall lay their hands on the sick and they
shall recover.”
In two places in Acts the laying on of hands is the gesture of ordination
to a special function—of the Seven in vi. 6 and of Paul and Barnabas in
xiii. 1. The development of this custom can be seen in the Pastoral
epistles (1 Tim. iv. 14 and 2 Tim. i. 6) and in the Catholic sacrament of
Ordination.
Most important of all, in viii. 16 f. the laying on of the hands of the
Apostles is regarded as the cause of the gift of the Spirit to the Samaritans,
and in xix. 1 ff. is apparently the direct cause of the reception of the Spirit
by the Ephesian Christians, but here it is closely related to instead of being
distinguished from baptism in the Name of the Lord Jesus. The direct
descendant of the practice indicated by these passages is obviously the
Catholic association of Baptism and Confirmation, so closely combined
yet never quite identified, and the difficulty of interpreting Acts finds its
analogue in the difficulty which the Church historian finds in distinguishing
between the gift of the Spirit in Baptism and in Confirmation.
It will be seen that Acts and the Pauline Epistles both bring us to the
verge, if not over the verge, of the fully developed system of practice and
belief which is essential to Catholicism. This system appears in the New
Testament in the Gospel of John. To discuss it in detail is outside the
scope of this note, but attention may be drawn to the following points.
The Johannine theory is stated at the beginning and end of the
Gospel: ‘“‘ But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become
the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (i. 12). “ But
these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name” (xx. 31).
These are the classical expressions of John’s theology, in which immortality
is the goal and Jesus’ Name the means. Their importance cannot be
over-emphasized. The Church which formulated them was no longer a
body of preachers exhorting men to repent in expectation of the coming
Kingdom of God, but a supernaturally endowed society which could give
salvation through the power of the Name of Jesus.1_ Within this society
petitions to God are answered, if made in the Name of Jesus, and the
essential and sole means of entry to this society is Baptism, which
conveys the Spirit and effects a miraculous change in the nature of
those who undergo it.
The discovery that historical evidence is not always consistent makes
the task of its analysis more difficult, but is entirely to be expected.
1 It is interesting to note that the Gospel of John has moved away from
the Markan tradition which represents Jesus as surprising everyone by
working miracles by ‘authority’ and not by means of anyone else’s ‘name.’
In John Jesus works miracles in ‘his Father’s name’ (cf. John x. 25), and
emphasizes that requests made in his Name will be granted both by him and
his Father. Cf. God’s concern for his own name, e.g. 1 Sam. x., xii. 22;
Jeremiah xiv. 20f.; Ezekiel xx. 9 and 14.
xt THE NAME, BAPTISM, ETC. 139
Christian usage was the direct result of the currents of belief prevalent in
the world in which it was born, but their assimilation and application was
not a deliberate and self-conscious one. The great difficulty in approach-
ing a problem of this kind by a study which places it in its historical per-
spective is that it is so easy to forget how completely this perspective was
lacking in the people whose ideas are being studied. They were not
aware of the causes which lay behind their beliefs or of the parallels to
them which existed. They reacted to the world in which they found them-
selves in the idiom and with the interpretative ideas to which they were
accustomed: the value of historical perspective is the recovery of a point
of view which has disappeared from the world and its interpretation against
the background from which it grew.
The formulae which embody the beliefs held in the early centuries of
Christianity about the importance and power of the Name of Jesus are still
uttered in Christian services. ‘‘ Our Father which art in Heaven, hallowed
be thy Name,” and petitions which conclude “and this we ask in the Name
of Jesus Christ our Lord” are constantly being repeated, but those who
use them do so as a rule because of habit engendered by a long tradition,
not because they attach to them any clear meaning or pronounce them with
any passion of affirmation... The theory is dead: the practice remains.
It is somewhat difficult to break through the resulting casualness and to
realize completely that the writer of Acts and his contemporaries in no way
shared it. Theirs was a world full of spirits, both good and bad, and they
were convinced of the value of using the Name of Jesus in their attempts to
deal with these spirits.
[For the most useful literature on this subject see W. Heitmiiller,
Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus; H. Windisch, Taufe und Sunde im
dltesten Christentum; J. V. Bartlet and K. Lake in Hastings, Encyclo-
paedia of Religion and Ethics, ii. pp. 375-390; A. Seeberg, Der Taufe im
N.T.8, 1913; G. Kittel, ‘ Die Wirkungen der christliche Wassertaufe nach
den N.T.,’ in Studien und Kritiken (1914), pp. 25 ff.; W. Heitmiiller, Im
Namen Jesu; R. Hirzel, Der Name (Abhandlungen der sdchsische Gesell-
schaft der Wissenschaften, xxxvi. 2), 1918; E.C. Achelis in Zeitschrift fiir
1 The fossilized expressions of that once vivid belief are found in many
of the services of the church. All the ceremonies of blessing and consecrating
are in general both exorcism and eisorcism—sometimes in the Name of Jesus,
sometimes of the Trinity. Benediction is actually the complement of exorcism
—it prevents devils entering in.
The third grade in the minor orders of the clergy, below those of acolyte
and reader, gives the right to exorcise devils ceremonially. Aside from the
ancient rite of exorcism in connexion with Baptism, which is still retained in
the Roman ritual, a form of service for the exorcising of possessed persons
may be found. The exorcist asks the devil his name, then laying his right
hand on the head of the demoniac he says: ‘I exorcise thee, unclean spirit,
in the name of Jesus Christ; tremble, O Satan, thou enemy of the faith, thou
foe of mankind, who hast brought death into the world, who hast deprived
men of life and hast rebelled against justice, thou seducer of mankind, thou
root of evil, thou source of avarice, discord and envy.”
Ananias
and the
Seven.
The Lucan
picture.
140 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
Pastoraltheologie (1889), pp. 58 ff., 441 ff., 481 ff., 525 ff.; J. Behm, Die
Handauflegung im Urchristenthum; A.J. Maclean in Hastings, Dictionary of
the Apostolic Church, ii. pp. 115 ff.; I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and
the Gospels, i. pp. 36 ff.; Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum N.T. i.
pp. 110 ff. and ii. pp. 647ff.; R. Reitzenstein, Die Vorgeschichte der
christliche Taufe, 1929 (but cf. the admirable review of H. H. Schaeder in
Gnomon, v. pp. 353 ff.).]
Note XII. Tae Communism or AcTs Il. AND IV.-VI. AND THE
APPOINTMENT OF THE SEVEN
By Kirsopp LAKE
Three questions must be clearly distinguished ; unfortunately only
the first can be answered with any certainty :
(i.) What was the view of the editor of Acts ?
(ii.) How far was he using different sources, and what is the relation
of these to the two ‘summaries’ ?
(iii.) What were the actual facts of history ?
(i.) The stories of Ananias and of the Seven are the best information
as to the mind of the editor. Whatever the facts implied in the summaries
in Acts ii. and iv. may really have been, he cannot have intended them
to contradict his interpretation of the plain meaning of these stories. But
the narrative is not written quite so well as some in Acts, and it may be
doubted whether it has not suffered in transmission. Three points stand
out. (a) That Ananias died suddenly, under circumstances which led
the Church to see in his death the punishment for some offence, is almost
certainly historical. (6) The words attributed to Peter are quite likely to
be an exegesis of the events by Luke, to suit his view of the administration
of the early Church. They are all the more important for the reconstruc-
tion of Luke’s view. The narrative itself does not make clear what was
the offence of Ananias; but this is elucidated by the conversation
between Peter and Sapphira, which is intended to explain the condensed
statement évordicato dé THs TyuAs, and shows that the offence was a
false statement as to the amount obtained by the sale (see note on
évoodioato in v. 2). (c) The Seven were appointed to administer the
‘dole’ given to ‘widows,’ because this task interfered too much with
the main work of the Twelve.
The picture of the early Church presented by Luke then becomes
plain. He thought that all the Christians were living together. But
this scarcely means that they were all still in the Upper Room. It is
true that éri 7rd aird, in ii. 44 and 47, might be interpreted to mean
actually living together ; but it is almost impossible to believe that after
saying there were 3000 converts the writer can have thought that they
were all in one house. The expenses of life were covered by the
periodic sale of property, and by the use of all possessions to help the
needy. The imperfects érirpackov, Sieyépifov ought to be pressed.
The central feature of the system implied is the creation of a fund by the
xi THE COMMUNISM OF ACTS 141
periodic sale of property, which was disposed of, not all at once, but
as occasion arose. The reason for describing this system as communism
is because the Christians deemed all things ‘common,’ and did not
recognize any exclusive right in private property. But in view of the
recent use of the word to describe a different and wholly modern economic
system, ‘communism’ is a doubtful phrase. Luke is not thinking
of ‘communism’ of production, or of possession, for though no one
claimed an exclusive right over his own property, it was still regarded
as in some sense his own. Moreover, the fund can scarcely be called
‘communistic’ in the modern sense, for it was created by sales, used for
the poor, and administered by the apostles. It may be added with some
probability that Luke saw in this picture of life devoid of poverty the
fulfilment of Deut. xv. 4 (‘‘save when there shall be no poor among you”),
which so emphatically states that there shall be no poverty among the
people of God.
But after a short time the ‘communistic’ experiment broke down The failure
for two reasons. First, owing to dissension which arose between the path RR
Hellenists and Hebrews about the doles received by the widows in the
‘daily ministration,’ so that seven administrators had to be appointed
to relieve the Apostles; secondly, because these administrators were
killed or driven out of Jerusalem by the Jews. This much is clear,
though it is far from certain what the author meant by Hellenists and
Hebrews. (See also Vol. I. pp. 306 ff.)
This question has been discussed in Additional Note 7. It is usually Hellenists
taken to mean Greek-speaking and Aramaic Jews. But all the linguistic rye ane
evidence shows that “EAAnviorjs merely means a Greek, and that
“EBpaios means a Jew, so that the writer may have meant Greeks and
Jews, and thought that there were Greeks in the Church from the day
of Pentecost. This is contrary to exegetical tradition, which has unani-
mously followed Chrysostom, who however admitted that he was doubt-
ful, but is more in accord with the general usage of the words, and
probably the intention of the writer.
The appointment of the Seven presents no such hard problem, so far The Seven.
as the author’s meaning is concerned. He regards them as selected
either by the Apostles or by the whole Church (see note on vi. 3) in order
to look after the administration of the dole to the widows. It is not
impossible that he had in mind the parallel appointment of the Elders
to assist Moses (Exod. xviii. 13 ff.). It is also obvious that he thought
that the dole had been raised by the communistic methods described in
ii, 41-47 and iv. 32-35.
(ii.) Can we discriminate the sources in the complex of narratives The
which begins with ii. 1 and ends with vi. 6 ? scarey:
A. von Harnack * has argued that in Acts ii.-v. Luke used two forms
of the tradition of Jerusalem, J* and J®. J* supplied iii. 1-iv. 31, and
J” supplied ii. 1-41 and v. 17-42, each giving accounts, in slightly
1 See Vol. II. pp. 126 ff. and 139 ff.
142 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
differing arrangements of order and expression, of the same series of
incidents—a miraculous episode, a speech by Peter, interference by the
Jewish authorities, and the outpouring of the Spirit on the disciples.
This much seems probable : is it possible to assign to either of these
sources or to the editor the two summaries (ii. 41-47 and iv. 32-35), the
story of Barnabas (iv. 36-37), the story of Ananias (v. 1-10), and the
story of the appointment of the Seven in consequence of dissatisfaction
among the recipients of charity ?
It is tempting at first sight to assign the first summary (ii. 41-47) to
J*, and the second (iv. 32-35) to J*. I did this in Vol. Il. pp. 145 ff.
But the investigation of H. J. Cadbury (see Additional Note 31) shows
that Luke was in the habit either of repeating the summaries of his own
composition, or of repeating, though with considerable variation, part or
all of a summary which he found in one of his sources. Thus there is
considerable probability that the two summaries in ii. and iv. are doub-
lets, representing only one original document. Was this source J* or J°,
or was it Luke’s own manufacture, and which is the more original form ?
The point cannot be clearly decided. In favour of the form in ii. 43 ff.
is that éri rd avré in vs, 47 is one of Torrey’s strongest arguments for
an Aramaic original (see Vol. II. pp. 55 and 143 f). If this argument _
be conceded, ii. 41 ff. must come from a source, and is more original
than iv. 32 ff. But the Aramaic problem is still unsolved. It must
be left an open question whether the possible explanation.of éri 7d airé
as an Aramaism is evidence against the editorial nature of the summary,
or the editorial nature of the summary is evidence against the theory of
Aramaism (see note ad loc.). On the qther hand, the reference to fear in
ii. 43 does not suit this context nearly so well as that of v. 5 and 11
where it recurs. Also, as is shown in Addit. Note 31, when a summary
is used in two places there is a slight balance of probability that the
second place is the original one.
However this may be, the improbability that J* supplied the
summary in iv. 32 ff. is shown by the fact that v. 12 ff. are logically
the continuation of iv. 29-31, and iv. 32-v. 11 completely destroy
this logical continuity. This can be seen by reading iv. 29-31 and
v. 12 ff. continuously :
**¢ And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings : and grant unto thy
servants to speak thy word with all boldness, while thou stretchest
forth thy hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done
through the name of thy holy servant Jesus.’ And when they had
prayed, the place was shaken wherein they were gathered together ; and
they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of
God with boldness. And by the hands of the apostles were many signs
and wonders wrought among the people; and they were all with one
accord in Solomon’s porch. But of the rest durst no man join himself
to them: howbeit the people magnified them ; and believers were the
more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women ; insomuch
that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on
beds and couches, that, as Peter came by, at the least his shadow might
xII THE COMMUNISM OF ACTS 143
overshadow some one of them. And there also came together the multi-
tude from the cities round about Jerusalem, bringing sick folk, and
them that were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed
every one.”
Thus it is probable that v. 12-16, or at least the beginning of it (see
note on p. 52), belongs to the same source as iv. 29-31, that isto J*. This
view is confirmed by the fact that J* is specifically a ‘Peter and John’
source, and J” is an ‘Apostles’ source. Consequently the intervening
sections, the story of Barnabas and of Ananias and the summary in
iv. 32 ff., do not belong to J*, but to another source. Was this J”, or
yet another? (a) In favour of J° is that, as was shown above, the
reference to fear in ii. 43 is far more suitable to v. 11 (the end of the
story of Ananias). It is therefore an attractive guess that J” originally
contained the stories of Barnabas and Ananias immediately after the end
of Peter’s speech, and then was concluded by the summary. Read thus
it presents not the slightest break : “ And with many other words did he
testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same
day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they
continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in
breaking of bread, and in prayers. And Joses, who by the apostles was
surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, the son of consolation),
a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought
the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But a certain man named
Ananias, with Sapphira, his wife, sold a possession, . . . and, carrying
her forth, buried her by her husband. And great fear came upon
all the church, and upon as many as heard these things. And all that
believed were together, and had all things common.” (Notice that
ii, 43a is a doublet of v. 11.) In this case the summary in iv. 32 ff. is
an editorial repetition of ii. 44 ff. to lead up to what follows.
(b) The alternative is that the stories of Barnabas and Ananias were
in general circulation, together with iv. 32 ff, which is an admirable intro-
duction to them, and were not included either in J* or J. Luke inserted
them, somewhat violently, into J*, separating iv. 29-31 from its proper
conclusion, v. 12-16. A somewhat similar readjustment of material,
chiefly in order to find a place for new stories, can be seen by comparing
Mark i. 16-33 with the complex of passages, Luke iv. 16-v. 11, where
it is clear that Luke disarranged the order of Mark, and partially rewrote
its language, in order to make room for two new stories—the Sermon
at Nazareth and the Miraculous Draught of Fishes.
Between,these two possibilities no decision can be made. Both explain
the facts, and each has its attractive features; but I incline to the
second, because it is more in accordance with Luke’s methods.
It is now possible to return to the summaries,
As is stated in the note on ii. 41 the summary begins, in the The
intention of the writer, with vs. 41 rather than vs. 42, though vs, 41 is Su™msties.
really the legitimate end of the preceding narrative. But apart from
this it seems to be made up out of phrases recurring elsewhere. In general
144 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
NOTE
the best context may be assumed to be the original. The evidence can
be most clearly perceived when arranged thus?:
(1) ii. 41.
ol pev ody dmodeEduevor
Tov byov avrod éBarrl-
cOncav, kal mpooeréOnoav
év TH huepa éxelvy Wuxal
woel Tproxeldiar.
(2) ii, 42.
jioav 5é mpooxaprepovdvres
TH Sibaxy TOY drocré\wy
kal TH Kowwvla, TH KAdoet
Tov dprov kal Tats mpoo-
evxais*
(3) ii, 48a.
éyelvero 5¢ mdon WuxT
pbBos.
(4) ii. 48b,
modda 6é tépara Kal on-
peta Oia Tv aroorb\wy
éyelvero.
(5) li, 44-45.
mdvres 5 ol micredoavTes
émt 7d adrd elxov dravra
kowd, Kal TH KTHpara Kal
Tas bmrdptes émlarpacKov
kal dvewépifov abra waow
xaddre dy tis xpelav elev"
(6) ii. 46a.
Kad’ tpépay Te mpookap-
Tepovvres Opobuuaddy év
T@ lep@,
i. 14.
otra mdvTes Foay mpoo-
KaprepodvrTes duobupaddv
TH mpocevyyn adv yuvackiv
kal Mapa. 7H wntpl Inood
kal odv Tots ddedpois
avrov.
v. Fi.
kal éyévero péBos péyas
éd’ bAnv Thy éexkdyolav
kal éri mdvras Tovs aKxov-
ovras Tava.
v. 12a,
dud Te THY xELpoy ToV
adroorédwy éyelvero onpeta
kal Tépara moda év TO
aw.
iv. 32, 34-35.
Tod dé wAnPouvs TeV mic-
TevodvTwy jv Kapdla Kal
Wuxn pla, Kal obdé els Te
T&v brapxdvTwy abT@ ee-
you UWiov elvar, adr’ jv
avrots mavTa Kowd...
ovdé yap évdens Fv tis év
avrots* Sco. yap KTHropes
xwpluv 7 olkiav barhpxor,
mw obdvres Epepov Tas TeL-
pas Tay mwirpackopévwy
kal érifovy mapa Tovs
mwbdas Tay drooré\wv* die-
dldero bé Exdorw xabdr dv
Tis xpelav elev.
v. 12b.
kalfoav 6uo0unadov raves
év TH Brog Todopdvos.
\
ii. 46
xa0’ tuepay Te mpoo-
Kaprepobvres dmobupaddév
év Tw lep@, KdOvrés TE
kat olkov dprov, pere-
AdpBavov TpoPpijs év ayad-
Ndoee «Kal adpeddryre
kapdlas.
v. 5b.
kal éyévero PébBos péyas
él wdvras Tovs GkovovTas.
i. 14a,
ovro mdvTes Hoav mpoc-
Kaprepodyres dmobupaddrv
TH mpocevxy-
1 It has seemed best to print here as well as in Addit. Note 31 this tabular
arrangement of the text, as the arguments can scarcely be followed in either
place without it.
xi THE
(7) ii. 46b.
kAGvrés Te Kar’ olkov
dprov, weTe\duBavov rpo-
pis év dyadNidoe Kal
agedérnrt kapdlas,
(8) ii. 47a.
alvodyres tov Oedv Kal
éxovres xdpiv mpds Sdov
COMMUNISM OF ACTS
ii. 42.
jioav dé mpocxaprepobyres
TH didaxy TOv drocrb\wy
kal TH Kowwvla, TH KA\doe
Tod dprov kal Tais mpoc-
evxais.
iv. 33b.
xdpis Te peyddn hv én
wavras avrous.
145
v. 18b.
GX’ éueydduvev adrovs 6
dads,
Tov Nady.
v. 14.
paddov Se mpoceribevro
misTevovTes TH Kuply
wAHOn avip&v te Kal -yu-
VALKWY,
In these passages the repeated and cumulative similarity certainly
indicates community of origin; but in no case does probability suggest
that the context in ii. 42 ff. is preferable to that of the parallels, and in
(3), (4), and (5) it indicates that the parallels give the better sense.
There is thus considerable reason for thinking that iv. 32 ff. was originally
the appropriate introduction to the stories of Barnabas and Ananias. It
had been used previously by Luke in ii. 42 ff. in combination with
fragments from other sources. One of these other sources is the end of the
story of Ananias, v. 11, which supplied the ‘fear’ passage. Another was
possibly J*, which may have contained v. 12.
Therefore ii. 42 ff. is almost certainly editorial and borrowed from
the source (J° or another) which provided iv. 32 ff.; iv. 32 ff. and
v. 12 ff. may be derived from sources.
Thus the final—though quite tentative—conclusions to the small but Conclusions.
complicated problem of analysing the ‘ narrative’ and ‘summary’ material
in this section are probably these :
(a) ii. 1-40, narrative, from J”.
(b) ii. 41-47, summary, an editorial duplication of iv. 32-35, but
possibly nearer the original form of the text.
(c) iii. l-iv. 31, narrative, from J*,
(d) iv. 32-35, summary, possibly from J” but more probably from
the original introduction to the stories of Barnabas and
Ananias, and almost certainly considerably revised by the
editor of Acts.
(e) iv. 36-v. 11, narrative, the stories of Barnabas and of Ananias,
possibly from J® but more probably a separate tradition.
(f) v. 12-16, summary, possibly composed by the editor, but it
probably contains the end of the J* source.
(g) v. 17-41, narrative, the end of the J” source.
(9) ii, 47d.
£
6 6€ xdpros mpocerifer
Tovs owouévouvs Kae’
ju€pay érl rd abr.
The remaining section which has to be discussed in this note is vi. vi. 1-6.
1-6. It is necessarily connected—at least for a commentator—with the
preceding narratives by the reference to the daily administration of alms,
VOL. V L
146 ##$THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
and it is impossible that this connexion was not also made by the editor
of Acts, to whom the appointment of the Seven is not only the beginning
of the persecution of Stephen with its far-reaching consequences, but also
is the end of the communistic experiment described in the earlier
chapters. But here the connexion ends. Few points in the Quellen-
kritik of Acts are so generally recognized to be certain as that with
chapter vi. Luke begins to use a new source, or more probably complex
of sources, which can only very doubtfully be identified with any of those
used in the earlier chapters. The exact analysis of Acts vi.-xv. is doubt-
less impossible, though some tentative suggestions may be advanced.}
For the present purpose the important point is that vi. 1-6 is differ-
entiated from the ‘ communistic’ account of J°in two ways. (a) Instead
of the picture of peace and contentment offered by the summaries in
chapters ii. and iv., in which everyone is contented with a distribution
‘according to his needs,’ there is a less pleasant if more probable picture
of dissatisfaction among the poor and inability to stand the pressure
of the situation among the apostles. (0) The Christians are called paOyrai
(see note on vi. 1 and Addit. Note 30)—a designation which though
common in the rest of Acts is not found in i-v. or in the Pauline Epistles.
Nevertheless, though clearly there is as good a case for distinguishing
the source of this section from J* or J as there is for separating these
two from each other, Luke’s opinion is clear—he wishes it to be under-
stood that the ‘ communist’ experiment broke down owing to the increase
of members in the Church. The Seven were specially appointed by the
church as administrative officers. Persecution drove them out, and this
paved the way for a description of the dpurreia of Stephen and Philip.
How far is it probable that vi. 1 ff. should be classed with the
‘summaries’ rather than with the continuous narrative? The possibility
cannot be excluded, and obviously vi. 1 may be an editorial addition
intended, as the summaries generally are, to connect what has gone before
with what is to come.
Harnack thinks that it may belong to the Antiochian source (A)
which was certainly used in chapter xi. and elsewhere. . But the whole
background of the story of Stephen is in Jerusalem. There are, in fact,
three tenable views about the whole story :
(a) It is taken from the Antiochian source and preserves the tradition
of his followers who fled to that city.
(6) It is a genuine piece of the reminiscences of the church in
Jerusalem, though not part ef J* or J°.
(c) It is Luke’s compressed edition of pieces of tradition from more
than one source, not perhaps always quite consistent with each other (see
Vol. II. pp. 148 ff. and the note on vii. 57, and for the speech in chap. vii.
see Addit. Note 32).
On the whole the third of these possibilities seems to me somewhat the
most probable, but no certain judgement can be made.
1 See Vol. II. pp. 147 ff., the notes in the commentary on vi. 1-xv. 35 (p. 63),
vii, 2-53, vii. 57, xi. 19 ff., and Addit. Note 16.
TT a cma
xII THE COMMUNISM OF ACTS 147
(iii.) What were the actual facts? In other words, how far can we The facts.
trust Luke to have interpreted correctly the facts described in his
sources, and how far is it likely that he modified their statements in
accordance with his own opinion? The answer to this question depends
mainly on our general judgement on Luke’s methods and reliability.
Opinions range from Ramsay, who in his later writings scarcely admits
the possibility of error in Acts on any point, to Loisy who scarcely
accepts anything in the earlier chapters as correct or even as the writing
of the original author. Any discussion is obviously very subjective and
largely depends on the cumulative effect of details which cannot be
repeated in writing but which are always present in thought.
My own personal opinion is that Luke always produces an in-
telligible story, which is very rarely open to decisive criticism, but that
this superficial intelligibility breaks down rather badly when we are
able to compare Luke’s narrative with other contemporary documents,
such as Mark and the Pauline Epistles, Moreover, the points where
it breaks down are often such that without the parallel documents
no one would have the faintest suspicion that the narrative is not
impeccable.
For these reasons I feel doubtful about the complete accuracy of
Luke’s account of the communistic experiment and the appointment of
the Seven, but even more doubtful whether it is possible to go behind
his narrative and reconstruct a more accurate picture of what really
happened, All that can be done is toindicate points which may modify
the general view which we derive from Acts or throw light on special
details in the narrative.
Two opposite possibilities have often been suggested. Neither can
be demonstrated : neither can be disproved.
(a) In favour of the ‘communistic’ view of the summaries repre- The ‘
senting all things as held in common, so that no one was in want, it may tic’ view.
be argued that this would be the logical result of the teaching of Jesus,+
Certainly he enjoined on the rich that they should sell their property
and give it to the poor, and offered rewards in the future to those who
sacrificed riches for his sake. He had undoubtedly blessed the poor,
and there is no similar beatitude extant on those who have wealth. He
did not say that the door of the Kingdom would be closed to the rich,
but the opportunity afforded to them was compared to a camel trying to
go through the eye of a needle.
Tt might well be argued that such teaching would naturally produce
the ‘communism’ of Acts, which represents not so much an economic
theory as a ‘horror of wealth’—Tertullian’s fastidium opulentiae. But
the weak spot in such an argument is that in point of fact this ‘com-
munism’ does not reappear in Acts, and is not mentioned in the Pauline
Epistles, It may have been tried for a few months, but if so it died an
early death,
1 In addition to the usual commentaries, or even to such books as Troeltsch’s
Soziallehren der christl. Kirchen, it is well to read R. v. Péhlmann, Geschichte der
sozialen Frage in der antiken Welt, vol. ii. (2nd ed.) pp. 587 ff.
Organized
charity.
The
Kuppah.
The Tamhui.
148 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
(b) On the other hand it may be argued that nothing really existed
in Jerusalem except an organized charity which was quite consistent
with Jewish practice.
The picture of communism is only found in one of Luke’s sources.
It is not mentioned or implied in the Antiochian source, or in J*; it
may belong to J”, but more probably was found by Luke in the introduc-
tion to the stories of Barnabas and Ananias. Is it more than an idyllic
generalization from these two stories ?
Professor Cadbury’s note on the Summaries (Addit. Note 31) suggests
that they are often generalizations from special cases, Taken by itself the
story of Barnabas and his gift is typical of the good man who honestly
contributed to the charitable funds of the church, and Ananias is typical
of the bad man who did so dishonestly. Both types are common in all
periods ; rich men constantly contribute to charity, and their motives
are not always single. The question is whether the summary is correct
in saying, or at least implying, that all rich men in the Christian com-
munity sold their property and gave it to the apostles.
The reason for doubting its accuracy is the very significant passage
in Peter’s speech to Ananias, ‘ While it (the property) remained did it
not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not in your power?”
This must mean that the offence was his dishonest pretence, not his
failure to sell property for the good of the poor. But this is not the
communistic picture suggested by the summary, and we have reasonable
ground for saying that though Luke thought that the practice of the
church was communism, his source originally implied only wide and
generous charity, so organized that the apostles were its immediate
recipients and its distributors to the poor.
Moreover this system of organized charity is almost the same as that
which prevailed in Judaism in the second century and probably in the
first.1 According to the Rabbinic accounts Jewish practice discouraged
charity given directly to needy persons, but in each municipality there
were two collectors who every Friday went around to the market and
to private houses to collect contributions either in money or in kind.
On Fridays there was also a distribution to those in want, in accordance
with their needs? by a committee of two or more. The poor who
actually belonged to the town were given a weekly dole sufficient for
fourteen meals, The fund from which this dole was made was called
the Kuppah (np) or ‘basket.’ No one could claim support from it who
had a week’s food in his house.
Besides the Kuppah there was also enbidice collection of food called
the Tamhuti (non) or ‘tray.’ This was made daily, instead of weekly,
1 There is no direct evidence for the first century; but that is because
the Talmud is the only document we have which deals with the subject. The
evidence is all collected by Strack, vol. ii. pp. 641-647, and by G. F. Moore,
Judaism, ii. pp. 162-179, especially pp. 176 ff.
2 Needs appear to have been liberally interpreted, and a man of good position
who had fallen on evil days was helped with due regard to his former state
(see Strack Z,c.).
xiI THE COMMUNISM OF ACTS 149
from house to house, for those who were in actual need of food for the
coming day.
It is obvious that these facts throw a flood of light on the ‘daily
ministration’ of Acts vi. 1, and the natural explanation of the story is
that the Christians formed a separate community in so far as they
collected and distributed a ‘basket’ and a ‘tray’ independently of the
rest of the Jewish population.
Apparently it is not known whether the distribution of charity in
Jerusalem was carried out by the synagogues in the various wards of
the city, by the Temple authorities, or by both. The last view would
seem the most probable, but of course our information is derived from
sources which are later than the destruction of the Temple, and, though
they probably represent in general a system which was in use far earlier,
the exact relation between Temple and synagogue authorities is just one
of the points where we do well not to be too certain. If, however, we
may make the double assumption—both parts of which are extremely
probable—that at least some charity was managed by the synagogues,
and that the Christians regarded themselves as and were organized as a
‘synagogue of the Nazarenes’ (see note on v. 11), it is clear that the
organized charity implied in Acts vi. is exactly similar to that described
in Rabbinical writings. The stories of Barnabas and Ananias are merely
a presentation of extreme cases,
The collection and distribution of the Christian ‘basket’ and ‘tray’
were at first managed by the apostles, but the work became too much
for them.2 They then appointed the Seven to take over their work.
The number seven has many associations in Jewish thought, but far the
most probable in this case is supported by the fact that Jerusalem was
divided into seven wards.
Further than this it is hard to go. The questions are inevitably raised, The Seven.
Who were the Seven, personally and apart from their administrative
functions, and why were they chosen? Unfortunately neither question
can be answered, and it is only possible to indicate certain lines of
thought along which critics have worked.
It has been shown on pp. 37 ff. that though the Twelve were prob-
ably a group of distinction and influence, the apostles—a wider circle
—were the leading factor in the life of the church. Barnabas, for instance,
was an apostle, but not one of the Twelve. It is therefore possible that
the Seven were themselves apostles before they were appointed as
‘Charity Commissioners’ The implication of Luke’s words is much
rather that the Seven were not apostles, but it cannot be doubted that he
—as distinct from his sources—was inclined to identify the Twelve with
the apostles, as the later church did. The question thus remains open,
1 Is there a reference to this in the obscure émovctoy dprov in the Lord’s
Prayer? Does it mean ‘keep us from the necessity of accepting the charity of
the tray’? Or is it a prayer for the continuance of the ‘tray’ as Mark vi. 8
uh Eprov rather suggests ?
2 Moore quotes an interesting parallel: Rabbi Jose ben Halafta prayed that
his lot might be among the collectors rather than the distributors.
Their
ordination.
The Seven
as
Hellenists.
150 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
though it must be admitted that the problem of the two Philips—the
Apostle and the Evangelist—-would be greatly simplified if they were
really one person.
It is in any case clear that the Seven—or at least Stephen and
Philip—did not owe the whole of their importance in the church to their
position as charity commissioners. It has often been pointed out that
they never appear again in the exercise of their administrative functions,
but as preachers, controversialists, and missionaries. What, then, is the
exact meaning of their ordination by the Apostles ?
Ordination by the laying on of hands is a Jewish practice (see
p- 137), and is one of the many examples in which this method was
used to pass on from one person to another some power or responsibility
or function. The meaning of Acts is that the apostles ‘ordained’
the Seven to administer charity. It does not necessarily mean more.
Nevertheless, a long line of critics, of whom Harnack is the most
famous representative, have been struck by the fact that the Seven all
have Greek names, and were appointed to satisfy the grumbling of the
‘ Hellenists’ (whatever that means) against the Hebrews. It has there-
fore been suggested that the Seven were really the leaders of the
‘ Hellenistic’ Christians, and the Twelve of the Jewish Christians. The
Lucan story of the Seventy? is, on this theory, perhaps another form of
this tradition, intended to give the Hellenistic leaders the same sanction
of appointment by Jesus as was enjoyed by the Twelve. This theory
which, for lack of evidence, can neither be confirmed nor confuted, suggests
two opposite considerations :
(a) There is nothing improbable in the theory that Luke exaggerated
the degree to which all Christian missionaries were subject to the Twelve.
This exaggeration can be seen in his treatment of Paul, for, though the
details may be uncertain, it is hard to doubt that the picture in Acts
represents him as more complacent towards the authority of the apostles
than is consistent with the epistles. Moreover in the Hpistola A postolorum
we can see the growth of this desire to paint in vivid colours the import-
ance of the Twelve. A curve of increasing emphasis can be traced from
the Pauline Epistles, the earliest documents, where it is at the lowest
point, through the position of Acts, to that of the Epistola, where it
reaches its maximum.
(6) On the other hand there is historically nothing in favour of the
view that the Twelve represent the Hebrews. They may represent a
mission to the Jews of the Diaspora; but so far as the facts go—and it
is not far—everything indicates that the Twelve, the Seven, Barnabas
and Paul, were all equally missionaries to the world outside Judaea.
None of them was the leader of the ‘Hebrews in Jerusalem.” That
was the position of James. Parity of reasoning suggests that just as Luke
and later writers exalt the Twelve, and bring Paul into subjection to
them, they may have minimized the importance of James. The ex-
ception to this rule, representing indeed the opposite tendency to exalt
James, is found in the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions.
-1 Luke x. 1. Perhaps ‘Seventy-two’ is the correct number.
erie
xl SIMON MAGUS 151
Further than this—and it is perhaps already too far—it seems
impossible to analyse and undesirable to speculate as to the organization
of charity in the Apostolic church in Jerusalem and the appointment of
the Seven. The way in which the tradition of the later church connected
the Diaconate with the Seven is outside the purpose of this note.
Note XIII. Smon Magus
By Rosert P. Casry
In Christian tradition Simon Magus has enjoyed the reputation of being
the first heretic, and historians must regard him as at least the first well-
known and widely successful teacher of an exotic form of Christian thought.
Accounts of his life and teachings are found in the canonical Acts of the
Apostles, in most of the heresiologists, and in a long series of apocryphal
acts and romances beginning with the Acts of Paul and extending through
the Middle Ages.
Of his early career we have only the account in Acts viii. 9 ff.? that he simon in
was a magician in Samaria, where his sensational feats attracted many “°*
followers who acknowledged him to be ‘ the power of God which is called
great,’ 7) Svvapis Tov Geot 7) kaAovpéevyn peyddryn. The preaching of Philip
in these regions drew away many of his adherents, and he ultimately followed
them and was baptized. Later, when Peter came up from Jerusalem,
introducing the gift of the Spirit by the laying on of hands,? Simon’s pro-
fessional instinct appears to have been reawakened. The remarkable
cures and exorcisms of Philip and the gift of the Spirit by Peter’s laying on
of hands must have appeared to him as a new magic art, and he suggested
that he might pay to acquire it. The offer was rejected by Peter with a
1 Acts viii. 9 ff.; Justin, Apol.i. 26, 56; Dial. c. Tryph. 120; Irenaeus, Adv.
haer. i. 16 (H.), i. 20 (G.); Tertullian, De anima, 34, Adv. omn. haer. 1; Clemens
Alex. Strom. ii. 52. 2, vii. 107. 1 (Stahlin iii. p. 75, Sylburg p. 325); Hippolytus,
Ref. vi. 7. 20, x. 12; Philastrius, Div. haer. liber, 29; Epiphanius, Panarion,
haer. 21; Theodoret, Haer. fabl. i. 1; Ps.-Augustine, De haeresibus, 1; Cyril of
Jerusalem, Catechesis, vi. 13 (P.G. xxxiii. 561); Acta Pauli 7 (Schmidt, pp.
73-75) ; Acta Petri cum Simone, 4 ff. (and allied documents, cf. M. R. James, T'he
Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford, 1924, pp. 471-472); Epistola Apostolorum, 1
(Schmidt, pp. 25, 33); Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, passim; Apost.
Const. vi. 8-9. On Oriental sources cf. F. Haase, Altchristliche Kirchengeschichte
nach orientalischen Quellen, Leipzig, 1925, pp. 322-327 ; Apostel und Evangelisten
in den orientalischen Uberlieferungen, Minster, 1922, passim. After a varied
career in medieval romantic literature Simon emerges in the figure of Goethe’s
Faust.
2 On the possible identity of Simon Magus with another magician of the’
same name mentioned by Josephus, Antig. xx. 7. 2, cf. H. Waitz, ‘Simon Magus
in der altchristlichen Literatur,’ Zeitschrift fiir neutestamentliche Wissenschaft,
v. (1904) pp. 127 ff.
3 Vol. I. pp. 337 ff.
Simon the
Samaritan.
152 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
sharp rebuke, and Simon, apparently taking his rebuff in good part, begged
Peter to pray that he might not be punished for his presumption. Of his
later history we have no details, but it is evident from the existence and
character of the Simonian sect known in the second century that he later
set up a religion of his own, in which he borrowed some elements from
Christianity.
The supposition that Simon was a member of the Samaritan sect has
no support in Acts and has been largely read into the later evidence.
Justin, whose home was in Neapolis * and whose testimony is therefore of
great value, calls Simon a 2apapeds, but uses the word in a strictly geo-
graphical sense to signify the inhabitants of the district of Samaria.* The
account of Simon’s early history in the Clementines clearly does not imply
it.4 Simon operated either in Sebaste, the capital of Samaria, a Hellenistic
town of mixed culture which was never a centre of the Samaritan religion,
or an unnamed city in the province.’ Nothing in the Simonians’ theology
suggests a connexion with the worship at Gerizim, while their secret cultus
before pagan statues,® their depreciation of the Law, and their antinomian
ethics all point in an opposite direction.
1 Vol. II. p. 58.
2 Apol.i. 1. Neapolis is the ancient Shechem, the modern Nablus, which
has always been the home of the Samaritan sect.
3 kal oxeddv mavres pev Dapapels, dAlyor 5é kal év dAors COverw, ws Tov mpSrov
Oedv éxeivoy duodoyobvres, éxeivov Kal mpoocxuvotct, Apol. i. 26; Linwwra pev Kal
Mévavipov dd Lapapelas, idem 56; ovde yap ard rod yévous Tod éuod, Aéyw dé
Tav Lapapéwy, rivds PpovTlda movodmevos, eyypdg~ws Kalcapt mpocouid@y, elaov
wravacbar aitovs medouévours TH ev TE yéver adrdv pdyyw Tiwi, dv Oedv brepdvw
mdons apxfs kal é£ovelas kal Suvduews elvac Aéyovot, Dial. cum Tryph. 120, cf.
Apol. ii. 15. It is clear that in these passages the Zayapeis are, like Justin,
inhabitants of the district of Samaria and not Samaritans in a sectarian sense
as in A pol. i. 53.
4 Hom. ii. 19 ff., Rec. ii. 7 ff., where he is described as Dauapeds 7d ZOvos, gente
Samareus, with a pagan education, obros év’ANeEavdpela 7H mpds AlyuTrov yeyorws,
A\Anvicy wadela wavy é~Eaoxhoas éavrév, cal paryela word duvnbels, ante magus,
Graecis tamen literis liberalibus adprime eruditus.
5 See note on Acts viii. 5.
® At the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, the temple on Gerizim, like that at
Jerusalem, was desecrated by association with the worship of Zeus (2 Macc.
vi. 1, cf. the spurious correspondence in Josephus, Antig. xii. 257 ff. ; Niese iii.
pp. 116-117), but a real syncretism appears to have been effected as little in one
place as the other (cf. M. Gaster, The Samaritans : their History, Doctrines, and
Literature, Schweich Lectures (1923), London (1925), pp. 35, 40 ff.). The state-
ment of the philosopher Marinus quoted by Photius, Bibl. 345 b 18 (P.G. 103,
1284)—8re 6 diddoxos Ipdxdov, pyclv, 6 Mapivos, yévos Hv ard ris ev Ilakacorivy
Néas médews, mpds sper katwKiouévns TO ’Apyapl{w Kadouuévy. elra Bacgdynudy 6
dvoceBhs, pnow 6 cuvyypadeds, ev @ Avds blorov ayusrarov lepdv, @ Kabcépwro
"ABpapmos 6 rOv mda ‘EBpalwy mpbyovos, ws airds &heyev 6 Mapivos. Lamapelrys
obv To am’ dpxiis 6 Mapivos yeyovws, dmwerdiaro pev mpds Thy éxelvwy Stay, dre els
Katvoroplay dad ris ’ABpduov Opnoxelas dmroppvetoav, Ta 5é ‘EAAjvwr jydmrnoev—
is probably no more than the affectation of a recent convert to Hellenism in
xu SIMON MAGUS 153
The title by which Simon was known in Samaria is a curious one, and The ‘Great
Acts gives no clue to its original meaning. Various possibilities of con- °°"
fusion in the text have been suggested. Klostermann? supposed that
peyaAn was a transliteration of xbiv or +b3n, participial forms of the verb
‘to lay open’ or ‘ reveal,’ and that Simon was originally known as ‘ the
Power of God which is called the Revealer,’ but it does not seem likely that
the author of Acts would have left so misleading a transliteration unex-
plained. Torrey,? on the assumption that Acts viii. is based on an Aramaic
source, translates viii. 10 b into Aramaic 2 xnpno ~ xabx 4 abn po and
maintains that the adjective 2, ‘ great,’ which may be taken grammatically
either with xnbx, ‘God,’ or =n, ‘ power,’ was intended by the Aramaic
author to go with the former but was misunderstood by his translator to
modify »b. The correct rendering, on this hypothesis, would have been
» Stvapus ToD Peod Tov KaAovpévov peydAov. It is always assumed that
the god whose ‘ power’ * Simon was held to be was Jehovah, but it is
evident both from later Simonian theology and from the fact that Simon
calling his native deity by a Greek name. Cumont’s statement (‘ Hypsistos,’
Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyklopddie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft), “ In
Samaria soll ein Tempel zu Zeus H. (Aids bYiorou dyudrarov iepdv) von Abraham
gegriindet worden sein (Marin. Vit. Isid. bei Phot. Bibl. 345 b 18. Die Uber-
lieferung geht auf Alexander Polyhistor zuriick, vgl. Euseb. Praep. Ev. ix. 17.4;
Movers Phénizier, i. 557; Dussaud, Notes de myth. syrienne, 5)” goes too far, for
Alexander Polyhistor, who at this point is apparently drawing on an anonymous
Samaritan historian (cf. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien i.-ii., Breslau, 1875,
pp. 82 ff.) says: mpecBéwv 5é rapayevouévwv mpds atrov drws xphyata aBow
dmodurpwon Tara, wh mpoedhécOa Tois Suaruvxovow éweuBaiverv, adda Tas Tpopas
AaBorvra Trav veavicxwy arododvar Ta aixuddwra, EevicOival re abrdv bd brews
iepdv ’Apyaprfiv, 8 elvar weepunvevduevor dpos bWlorov, rapa dé ro) Medxuoedéx lepéws
bvros TOD Oeot Kal BacidevovTos AaBeiv SGpa. Eusebius, Praep. Ev. ix. 17, p. 419 a.
8 elvar webepunvevopuevov Spos WWicrou is obviously wrong and may be a gloss (cf.,
however, Freudenthal, op. cit. p. 89 n.), but there can be no doubt that tyoros
is merely a conventional description of Jehovah. Cf. p. 446.
1 A. Klostermann, Probleme im Aposteltexte, Gotha, 1883, p. 18.
2 <The Composition and Date of Acts’ (Harvard Theological Studies, i.,
Cambridge, 1916), pp. 18-20. Cf. Vol. II. pp. 147-148.
3 It is characteristic of the two religions that Christianity claimed Jesus to
be the Adyos rod Geod and Simonianism conceived Simon as the dvvayis tod
Geod. On the theological conception of dvvauis in and about this period cf.
the charm published from an Egyptian papyrus of the fourth century by
Wessely, Griechische Zauberpapyrus von Paris und London (Denkschrift der
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien, Phil.-hist. Classe, 36, 1888), pp. 76-77, .
Il. 1275 ff.: dpxrixh ravra rowodca * \byos* érikadodual oe Ti peylorny Siva Thy
év T@ obpavg (4dAou Thy év TH dpxrw) bd Kkuplov Oeod reraypevnv éml TO oTpépey
Kparaig xetpe Tov iepdv wédov, vixapoTAHE érdxovody por, “He Ppn, Tov lepdv, 6 7a
dra cuvéxwv cal {woryovdv Tov cUuravra kécpov; A. Deissmann, Bible Studies, 2nd
edition, London, 1903, p. 336; and the valuable collection of material by
A. D. Nock, ‘ Studies in the Graeco-Roman Beliefs of the Empire,’ Journal of
Hellenic Studies, xly, (1925) pp. 84 ff.
Justin.
The alleged
statue of
Simon.
154 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
was worshipped before statues of Zeus that the Simonian conception of
God was a mixture of Zeus and Jehovah.
The first to add new material to the story in Acts is Justin Martyr
(1 Apol. 26, 56, Dial. cum Tryphone 120), who describes Simon as a magician,
a native of Gitta in Samaria, who came to Rome in the reign of Claudius.
He was accompanied by a Phoenician woman named Helen, who had
abandoned the career of a professional prostitute to live with him, and his
followers, who comprised most of his fellow-countrymen and some others,
worshipped him as the supreme God and regarded Helen as the ‘ primary
notion’ emanating from him. At Rome a statue was erected in his honour
on the Tiber between two bridges and bore the inscription, Smmont DEO
Sanoto. Justin adds that another Samarian magician, Menander of
Capparetia, became Simon’s disciple and by his magic deceived many
at Antioch, persuading them that by following him they would gain
immortality.
Justin’s account is brief but clear. He does not refer to the story in
Acts, and all his information appears to have been derived from other
sources. The birthplace of Simon, the account of Helen and the place
she occupied in his theology, his presence in Rome under Claudius, his
disciple Menander: all this is fresh material and is not even suggested by
Acts. Justin himself was a native of Neapolis and had visited Rome.
His account of the statue is probably inexact, for a monument with the
inscription Srmonz Sanco Dzo Fivio sacrum SEx(tTvus) Pompzrtus Sp(uRI)
F(ILIUS) CoL(LINA TRIBU) MUSSIANUS QUINQUENNALIS DECUR(IAE) BIDEN-
TALIS DONUM DEDIT? was unearthed in the sixteenth century. This is
generally held to be that to which Justin referred. Semo was an ancient
Italian deity often identified with Jupiter and Zebs épxsos or riotuos.®
Besnier and others assert that the connexion with Simon is simply a mis-
understanding of Justin’s. That the statue had originally no connexion
with Simon is evident, but it is not impossible that Simonians at Rome used
it for their own worship. The cultus of Simon was regularly performed
before statues of Zeus, and the similarity of the names Semoni and Simoni
may have proved an added attraction to such persistent allegorizers. The
fact that the monument was used by others for a different worship need
also have been no hindrance in so cosmopolitan an age. Examples of
temples and images used by different sects for their own religion are attested
in the De dea Syra * and were probably not uncommon.
Furthermore a simple misunderstanding of the inscription does not
1 For similar combinations cf. E. Schiirer, ‘Die Juden im bosporanischen
Reiche und die Genossenschaft der ceBdueror Oedv tyroror,’ SBA., 1897, i. pp.
200 ff. ; F. Cumont, ‘ Hypsistos,’ in Pauly-Wissowa. See also pp. 88 ff. ‘
2 C.I.L. vi. 567, now at the Vatican. Cf. M. Besnier, ‘ L’ile tibérine dans
Vantiquité ’ (Bibliothéque des Ecoles Frangaises d’ Athénes et de Rome, 87), Paris,
1902, p. 273.
3 G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Romer, 2. Aufl., Miinchen, 1912, pp.
130 ff. ; Besnier, op. cit. pp. 286 ff. Besnier gives reasons why the identification
of Semo and Jupiter is particularly likely at this sanctuary.
* Ps.-Lucian, De dea Syra, 11 ff.
sii SIMON MAGUS 155
dispose of the statement that Simon was in Rome under Claudius. This
information may be wrong ; but it should not be discounted merely because
it is associated with the reference to the statue. It is inherently no more
improbable that Simon made a journey to Rome than that Justin or Peter
did. It seems extremely unlikely, however, that Justin, who knew of
Simon’s activities in Samaria, would have invented his presence in Rome
and confirmed it with an imaginary date simply from having misread
Semoni Sanco Deo. The existence of Simonians in Rome at the time of
Hippolytus is tolerably certain, and it is not unlikely that they were the
descendants of Simon’s personal followers there.
The historic character of Helen has also been questioned. Waitz Helen as
supposed her to be the Phoenician moon-goddess with whose worship onfaae:
Simonianism became entangled at the close of the first century. “‘ Werden
wir namlich mit der Helenageschichte von Samarien auf einmal nach Tyrus
versetzt, so kénnen wir uns diese Entwickelung nicht anders vorstellen, als
dass sich die samaritanische Verehrung Simons als des obersten Gottes mit
der phénizischen, speziell tyrischen Verehrung des Sonnengottes (Sem,
Schemesch, Herakles, Melkart, Baal) und der Mondgéttin (Helena, Selene,
Luna, Astarte) verbunden hat.”? Of such a development of Simonianism,
however, Justin is entirely ignorant, and none of the fragments or accounts
of Simonian sources suggest it. Only the Clementines, in a curious passage
on the origins of a sect supposed to have been founded by Ji ohn the Baptist,
could be offered as evidence in this. connexion : ‘Twdvyns: TUS eyévero 7) 1€po-
Barrurrys, 8 os Kat Tov Kupiov pov ‘Inoov KATO TOV THS ov(vyias Adyov
eyevero mpdodos. Kab domep T) Kupi yeyovacty b0dexa drdarohot,
TOV TOU HAiov Siidexa pnvav pépovtes Tdv dpiOpov, & aoatros Kal avr@
eLapxor avdpes yeysvacev TpidKovra, TOV pavaiov THS weAjvas dar om An
potyres Adyov. év d apps pio. Tis Hv ye", Aeyopevn “EXevn, tva pn de
/ TOUTO dvoLtKOVOUNTOV 7. Tuo yap dvdpos otoa yuvi, dred TOV THIS Tpta-
KovTddos TeHeikev dprOpov, Gorep Kat THs veins, Hs 7 7 Topeia TOU pnVvos
od TéActov Tovetras TOV Spopov. TObTwV be TOV TpidKovTa, TO ‘lwdvvy
™poros Kat Soxtpurraros Hv 0 oO Zipov: os kat TOU pe dp£ae avrov pera
THY teAeuTHV TOU ‘Twdvvov, aitiav érxev tattnv, Hom. ii. 23; cf. Rec.
ii. 8. This account is suspicious from every point of view; but the
astrological theory contained in it is evidently its own and not a Simonian
feature. The Simonians themselves identified Helen with Athena,’ and for
an obvious reason. Just as the Homeric Helen assisted in the explanation
of this Phoenician’s too romantic career, so the story of Athena’s birth
from the head of Zeus could be used as an allegory for the emergence of.
Helen as the primeval notion from the divine mind of Simon.‘
1 Ref. vi. 19. 7. The passage appears to indicate that Hippolytus was
acquainted with Simonians. It is no more than a natural assumption that they
were at Rome.
2 Waitz, op. cit. p. 134.
3 Tren. i. 16. 3 (H.); Hippolytus, Ref. vi. 20; Epiphanius, Haer. 21. 4.
* Tren. i. 16. 2 (H.) “hic Helenam quandam, quam ipse a Tyro civitate
Phoenices quaestuariam cum redemisset, secum circumducebat dicens hanc esse
primam mentis eius conceptionem, matrem omnium, per quam in initio
Irenaeus.
156 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
Another piece of Simonian exegesis also militates strongly against the
view that Helen was a moon-goddess, and that is in the parable of the lost
sheep.t The explanation given in the sources is that Simon came to earth
to rescue from the power of the angels his "Evvova, incarnate in Helen,
just as the Good Shepherd sought the lost sheep. Once having found her
it is natural that he should not wish to lose her, and hence their companion-
ship was explained. This ingenious, if not entirely ingenuous, explanation
of an awkward situation is surely too good not to have been invented @
propos, and it is, besides, entirely consistent with the rest of Simonian
theology. There is, however, no obvious connexion between it and
mythology of the sun and moon. There seems to be no reason, therefore,
for rejecting the view of all the ancient writers that Helen was a historical
character. It may well be that Simon deceived himself as well as others
about the supernatural importance of his mistress, but apart from their
theology, which was, if nothing else, their stock-in-trade, a liaison between
a magician of Samaria and a Tyrian prostitute is neither improbable nor
remarkable.
Irenaeus (i. 16 H.) relates that Simon held the supreme God to be an
exalted Power (sublimissimam virtutem) which manifested itself in three
individuals, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.?- From this Power the
Father produced a Notion (ennoia) who following her Father’s will descended
to a lower sphere and created angels and powers (angelos et potestates).
These subordinate beings fashioned the visible world, but were so desirous
that they should not be thought the children of another that they kept
the ‘ Notion’ a prisoner, preventing her from returning to the Father, of
whose existence they were unaware, and subjecting her to all manner of
humiliations, for while under their control she was obliged to assume one
human body after another. Thus she appeared in history as Helen of Troy,
and later as that Helen of Phoenician Tyre who was Simon’s companion.®
mente concepit angelos facere et archangelos. Hanc enim Ennoian exsilientem
ex eo, cognoscentem quae vult pater eius, degredi ad inferiora, et generare angelos
et potestates, a quibus et mundum hunc factum dixit.”
1 Tren. i. 16. 2 (H.) “et hanc esse perditam ovem”; cf. Hippolytus, Ref. vi.
19.4; Epiphanius, Haer. 21.3. 5 6: rddw reyev, ws mpoetrov, vrodalywy éxelyny
Thy per adbrod yuvaixa riv dxd Tépov AnPOeioav abr@ Tiv oudvupov ris madkadas
‘Erévyns, Ta wdvra tavrny Kadav xal”Evvowy Kal AOnvay xal ‘EXévyy xal ra Gdda
“kal dia tratrynv,” pyol, “xaraBéBnxa: rodro ydp éott 7d yeypampévov év TH
evayyeXlw 7d mpdBarov 7d memdavypuevor.”
2 Tren. i. 16. 1 (H.) “ hic igitur a multis quasi Deus glorificatus est, et docuit
semetipsum esse qui inter Iudaeos quidem quasi Filius apparuerit, in Samaria
autem quasi Pater descenderit, in reliquis vero gentibus quasi Spiritus sanctus
adventaverit ’’; Ps.-Augustine, De haeresibus, 1, and Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. vi.
13, P.G. xxxv. 561, must be garbled versions of this passage.
3 Tren. i. 16. 2 (H.) “‘ posteaquam autem generavit eos, haec detenta est ab
ipsis propter invidiam, quoniam nollent progenies alterius cuiusdam putari
esse ; ipsum enim se in totum ignoratum ab ipsis: Ennoian autem eius detentam
ab iis, quae ab ea emissae essent potestates, et angeli; et omnem contumeliam
ab iis passam uti non occurreret sursum ad suum patrem, usque adeo ut et in
xu SIMON MAGUS 157
She is referred to in the New Testament as the lost sheep of the parable.
At length the supreme God took pity on her and the world in which she was
imprisoned and descended to rescue her, bringing salvation to mankind
and relief to a world suffering from the mismanagement of the angels whose
counsels were divided by jealous rivalries. Taking a form like those of
the angels and ‘ powers,’ he appeared in Judaea, seeming to be a man and
apparently enduring pain, though in fact he was not human or passible.
Those whom he has saved and who place their hope in Simon and Helen
are secured once for all by his favour and need acquire no further merit
from good works. They are not bound by the precepts of the Law, which
was delivered by the angels who made the world, but may act according
to their own desires, since conduct is not absolutely but only relatively
good.’ Irenaeus concludes his account by saying that Simon’s followers
lived licentiously, practised magic, and worshipped Simon and Helen before
statues of Zeus and Athena.
Closely connected with this description is the Simonian source Epiphanius.
employed by Epiphanius, Haer. 21.2 ff. In the passages quoted Simon
speaks in the first person, and it is likely that the work was a dogmatic
apocalypse in which developed sectarian doctrine is put into the mouth
of the founder as was done in Christianity in the Fourth Gospel. The
structure of the myth is the same as in Irenaeus, but some details are
clarified and others added. Simon’s descent to rescue Helen is thus de-
scribed : ev éxdory dé ovpave perenoppovpny, gnoiv, kara THY poppy
TOV év éxdory ovpary, iva AdBw TOS dyyehuxds pov Suvdpers Kat KarehOw
ért THY "Evvocay, arHs éoriv avTn 7 Kat Tpobvixos kat mvevpo. dy vov
kadovpévn, S¢ Hs tos dyyéAous extica, of S¢ adyyedou Tov Kdcpov
extivav Kat Tovs dvOpwrovs. This passage explains the obscure sentence
corpore humano includeretur, et per saecula veluti de vase in vas transmigraret
in altera muliebria corpora. Fuisse autem eam et in illa Helena, propter quam
Troianum contractum est bellum; quapropter et Stesichorum per carmina
maledicentem eam, orbatum oculis: post deinde poenitentem et scribentem
eas, quae vocantur palinodias, in quibus hymnizavit eam, rursus vidisse.
Transmigrantem autem eam de corpore in corpus, ex eo et semper contumeliam
sustinentem, in novissimis etiam in fornice prostitisse.”
1 “Quapropter et ipsum venisse, uti eam assumeret primam et liberaret
eam a vinculis, hominibus autem salutem praestaret per suam agnitionem; cum’
enim male moderarentur angeli mundum, quoniam unusquisque eorum con-
cupisceret principatum, ad emendationem venisse rerum, et descendisse eum
transfiguratum, et assimilatum virtutibus et potestatibus et angelis, ut et in
hominibus homo appareret ipse, cum non esset homo; et passum autem in
Iudaea putatum, cum non esset passus; prophetas autem a mundi fabricatoribus
angelis inspiratos dixisse prophetias: quapropter nec ulterius curarent eos hi
qui in eum et in Helenam eius spem habeant, et ut liberos agere quae velint :
secundum enim ipsius gratiam salvari homines, sed non secundum operas
iustas, nec enim esse naturaliter operationes iustas, sed ex accidenti quemad-
modum posuerunt qui mundum fecerunt angeli, per huiusmodi praecepta in ser-
vitutem deducentes homines, quapropter et solvi mundum, et liberarieos qui sunt
eius ab imperio eorum qui mundum fecerunt, repromisit.” Iren. i. 16. 3 (H.).
158 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
in Irenaeus (i. 16.1 H.): “hic igitur a multis quasi Deus glorificatus est,
et docuit semetipsum esse qui inter Iudaeos quidem quasi Filius apparuerit,
in Samaria autem quasi Pater descenderit, in reliquis gentibus quasi Sanctus
Spiritus adventaverit.”” The Simonian trinity evidently consisted of the
Father = Simon, the Son = Jesus, the Holy Spirit = Helen, but in a sense
Simon was all three. His appearance in Samaria was that of the Father —
in person (‘“‘in Samaria autem quasi Pater descenderit”’), but he was also
identical with the Godhead manifested in, Jesus (‘‘inter Iudaeos quidem
quasi Filius apparuerit*’), and his was the mind from which the Notion
Helen emanated.
The doctrine of the angels who created this world is also explained more
fully than in Irenaeus. They all bear outlandish names and have their
own celestial domain, and to be saved it is necessary to know their names
and to sacrifice to the Father of all through them. This last feature is very
peculiar in view of the hostility implicit in the whole system between the
régime of the angelic beings and that of the supreme god. This age is one
of evil like its creators, and the flesh of man which they fashioned is con-
temptible, only his soul being capable of salvation through the gnosis im-
parted by Simon, the supreme god. The Old Testament is not the work
of the good god but is a composite production inspired in its several parts
by different demons, all of them emanating from the ‘left power’ who
stands outside the pleroma. This doctrine no less than the account of
Simon’s descent through the spheres is obviously connected with Valentinian
teaching.
Epiphanius gives more fully than Irenaeus examples of Simonian
exegesis, both of Homer and of the New Testament. The transmigrations
of Helen and her redemption by Simon are described in a quotation from
his source, where Simon declares “ jv dé atrn tore 7 eri Tots “EAAnoi Te
kat Tpwot kat dvwtdatw mpiv 7 Tov Kéopov yever Oat kal pera TV KOT pLOV
dua, TOV dopatwv Svvdpewv Ta iodtura Teroinkvia. attyn d€ erry 1) VvoV
ovv éuoi Kal dud Tabrny xarehjdv0a. Kat airn de mpooedoxa. THY €p7)V
mapovoiay: airy yap éotw 1) "Evvova, » Tapa ‘Opnjpy “EXevn KaAoupevn.
Kat Tovrou évenev dvayKdlerar adtiv Suaypacerv “Opnpos. ext mopyou
éornkevar Kai dua Aapmrddos tropaivev Tois "EAAnot THY Kato. Tov
Ppvyayv exiBovdijv. exapaxri pre be dua Tis Aaparndéovos, as env, THV
TOD avwOev purds évdeuk wv.” 8d Kal Tdv rapa TO ‘Oprpy Sodtpevov trmov
PepnXavnpEvor, ov vopifovo "EAAnves erirndes yeyeriio Bau, édeye waduy
6 ons btu ayvow eore TOV EOvaV" Kal “ ds of Ppvbyes éAKovres avrov
dyvoig Tov iStov dAeOpov € emer TdoavTo, oUTw [yep] Kat Ta €Ovn TovTértiv
ot dv@pwrot of ExTds THs EuHS yvdcews, Sia THS dyvoias EAxovow EavTois
THv ardAeav ” (Haer. 21. 3).
The identification of Helen with Athena and with the ‘lost sheep’ also
appears in Epiphanius: dAAd Kai “A@nvav rdédw tiv adriy éAeye THV
rap avt@ "Evvowav kaAovpevny, xpopevos dn0ev 6 rAdvos Tals Tov dyiov
drortoAov IlatAov gwvais, petarodv te THV dAjnOeav cis TS avTOD
Weddos, Td “evdtcarbe Tov Odpaka Tis ticTews Kal Tiv Tepikedadreiav
Tov owrnpiov Kat Kvynpidas Kal paxaipav Kal Oupedy,” ravTa Tadra,
éxt tas TOD Piliotiwvos pipodroyias 6 araredy Ta bxd TOD drooTdéAoV
xi SIMON MAGUS 159
eipynpéva Sid. orepedy Aoyiopdv Kal rior ayvis dvactpodis Kai Sivapev
Geiov Adyou Kai érovpaviov eis xAet’nv Aourdv Kal oddev Erepov peTa-
otpepov. “ti yap,” pyoi, “radra mavra eis "BiGyves TUTOUS PYTTHPLWdOs
eo xnpadrege” a SAKD Kat dud tadrnv,” pyoi, ¢ ‘xara BEBnka. TOUTO yap
éote Td yeypappevov ev TH ebaryyedi 7) mpoPBatov 76 merAavynpéevov”
(Haer. 21. 3, 4-5).
Hippolytus’s account of the Simonians repeats in part details familiar The neyéAy
from Irenaeus, but adds long extracts from a Simonian source entitled “**"*
“H MeydAn’Arédacis. This document, which has marked affinities with
Valentinianism, teaches that the first principle of the universe is fire, which
is sometimes called the great or infinite power.? It has a double aspect,
one hidden, the other visible, and of these the latter represents the pheno-
menal world, the former its underlying reason. The universe came into
being from fire, and the whole cosmic history is conditioned by the activity
of fire. The first step in the process was the emergence from the fire of
six ‘roots’ and is thus described: yéyovev obv 6 Kéapos 6 yevvntds amd
TOU dyevvyjTrov Tupos. Tp§aro b¢, ones, yevér Oa Tovrov Tov Tpdror, e
pitas Tas mpiras Tijs apx7s Tis yevvqrews AaBav 6 yevynrds amd THS
apxis Tov Tupos exeivov, yeyovevat be TOS pitas gyot Kara, oufvyias dard
TOU Tupés, dorivas pitas kahei, vouv kal érivo.ay, poviy Kat dvopa,
Aoywrpdv Kai évOdpnow: civas Se év rais €€ pitas ravras Tacav Gpov
THhv amrépavrov Sivapy Suvdpe, ovK evepyeig. (Ref. 6. 12. 1-2). The six
roots are equated with parts of the universe thus: vols Kal érivow =
ovpavds Kal yn, pwvr Kal dvoua=Aos Kal ceAjvyn, Aoywpds Kat
evOvbunois = anp kat bdwp, but the Seventh Power is immanent in them all.
The visible world is the offspring of vovs and ézivova, and its only value
lies in the realization of the rational element in it.4 Man is a dichotomy,
1 Mwoéws yap \éyorros, “871 0 Oeds Tip préyov éorl kal karavaNloxov ” SeEdpmevos
7d AexOev bd Mwcéws odx bpOds, wip elvar rdv Sdwv Aéyer Thy apxnv... Ref.
vi. 9. 3.
2 dmrépaytor 6é elvar Sivamw 6 Tiuww mpooaryopever Tov Sw Thy apxhy
Ref. vi. 9.4. It is also called pifa rév Siwr, Ref. vi. 9. 4-5.
3 gore 5¢ ) dwéparros Sivams, 7d Wop, Kara Tov Xhuwva ovdev amdodv, xaddmrep
oi ToNol amrAG révovres elvar TA TéEcoapa crorxeia Kal 7d Top amdody elvar vevout-
Kao, G\Ad yap elvac [Thy] Tod wupds Sirdqv Twa Thy piow, Kal Ths durdijs TavTyS
Karel 7d pév Te Kpu@rév, TO 5€ Te Havepdy* KexpUpbar dé ra KpuTTa ev Tols Pavepots
Tod mupés, kal Ta pavepa Tod rupds brd T&v KpyTTa&v yeyovéva. Ref. vi. 9. 5-6.
* ray 6é & Suvduewy robTwr Kal THs EBSduns THs wera TGv & Karel Thy rpwrny
ougvylay vodv cal élvoay, ovpaydy Kal viv Kal Tov peév Apoeva dvwhev ériBrérew
kal mpovoeiy ris cuti-you, Thy 5é viv brobéxec Oat Kdtw Tods dd TOD odpavod voepods
kaTagepouévous TH ij cuyyevets aprovs. did ToOTo, pnolv, dmwoBémwv Todddxts 6
Abyos mpds Ta éx vods kal éxwwolas yeyevynuéva, Touréctiv €& odpavod Kal ~yijs Néyer*
“dxove, odpavé, kal evwrifou, yi bre KUpios éAdAnoev* vlods éyévynca kal tbYwoa,
avrot dé ue HOErnoav.” 6 dé Aéywr Tadra, Hyolv, h EBddun Sivapls eorw <> Ears,
otds, ornobpuevos* airds & alrios ToUTwy TGV KadGy, Gv éwyvece Mwotjs kal elie
Kana Mav. 7 52 mwvh cal 7d Svoua HrLos Kal cedrjvy, 6 5é Aoytopds Kal 7 EvOtunors
dip Kal bdwp. év dé rovros dmacw éupéucxra Kai Kéxparat, ws pny, meyadn
dbvams % dwréparros, 6 cords. Ref. vi. 13.
se 89
The
"Anddacts
and Stoic
thought,
160 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
created kat ¢ixdéva kal a0’ duoiwow Tod Oot, and his goal is perfectly
to image the divine principle in his nature. The universe is the rationally
developed character of men.? The process of salvation, however, has more
than a human significance, for in realizing his own best nature man releases
the Seventh Power from the prison of potentiality, so that in becoming
actual it is united with the ultimate divine principle of the universe from
which it was originally derived.*
This outline of the ideas underlying the system of the Apophasis is
sufficient to show its affinity with Stoic ontology and cosmology. The
dynamic materialism, the doctrine of elements which maintains that fire,
though not itself a simple substance, was the primary element to which all
others could be reduced,‘ the dissolution of the world in fire, the identifica-
tion of rvetya. and zip,5 the doctrine of immanence, and the idea that man
achieves perfection in the exemplification of the divine latent in him—all
these are unmistakable evidences of Stoic influence and show that the
author of the Apophasis was profoundly steeped in Stoic philosophy. But
this was only one aspect of his thought. He was more a theologian
than a philosopher, and much of his interest lay in the invention of
elaborate metaphors and the adaptation of a variety of mythology
and tradition to his philosophic ideas. His method is the same as
that of Philo and Cornutus, but his ingenuity if anything more perverse
than theirs.
The affinities between the Apophasis and the Simonianism described
1 “&rhace,” pyaty, “6 Beds Tov dvOpwrov xobv dd THs ys” AaBwv’ erdace dé
ovx ardodv, ddAG Surdody “ Kar’ elkdva Kal Kad’ opuolwow.” eixdv 5 éort Td Tred UA
Td émipepbuevov érdvw rod viaros (Gen. i. 2, cf. Ref. vi. 14. 4). 8 dav wh
éfecxovicOn, pera Tod Kédcpou Grodetra, Suvduer petvay pdvov Kal ph évepyela
yevopnevov—rodrd éort, pyol, 7d elpnucvor' “iva ph oly TE Kbcmm KaTaxprOGmev”
(1 Cor. xi. 32). Ref. vi. 14. 5-6.
2 xadddrov dé €orw elwety, ravrwy Tov byTwv alcOnTr&v Te Kal vonrwv, Gv éxeivos
Kpuglwv kat pavep&v mpocaryopever, ott Onoavpds 7d mip 7d brepovpdnov, olovel
Sévdpov péya ws <Td> dt dvelpov Brerbuevov 7G NaBovxodovdcop, €& 0} raca
odpt rpéperat. Kal 7d wéev havepoy elvac rod rupds voulfer 7d mpéuvov, Tovs KAdOous,
Ta pidra, Tov ZEwOev airg mepixelwevov proby. dmravra, dyol, radra Tod weyddov
dévdpou dvapbérra bd Tis waupdyou Tod mupds ddaviferar proyds. 6 5 Kapmés TOU
dévdpou édy ékecxovic OH Kal tiv éavrod popphv droddBy, els aroOjKnv TlOerat, ovK
eis to Tip. yéyove wer yap, pnolv, 6 kapwés, iva els Thy droOhKny TeOy, Td 5 &xvpor,
iva mapadoOy Tw mupl, 8rep €or rpéuvov, ob a’rod xdpw adda TOD Kaprod yeyern-
pévov. Ref. vi. 9. 8-10. The passage is an ingenious combination of Dan. iv. 7-9
and Matt. iii. 12 as an allegory for the Stoic doctrine of the final conflagration.
Cf. Ref. vi. 16. 5-6. The term xaprés in a similar connexion appears in some
Valentinian systems.
. § Ref. vi. 12. 2-4, 14. 6. An elaborate mixture of physiology and allegory
explains this process further in Ref. vi. 14. 7-17. 7.
4 gore Oe 7) drépavros Sivamis, 7d wip, Kara Tov Xuwva ovdév amrodv,...
GAG yap elvar [rhv] roo wupds Simdiv twa Tiv piow, Kal THs Suds Tavrns
Kane? 76 wv Te Kpurrév, 7d dé Te havepdv. Ref. vi. 9. 5.
5 Of. Ref. vi. 14. 5-6.
xi SIMON MAGUS 161
by Irenaeus are few and slight.1_ Irenaeus presents a frankly mythological The *Ané-
scheme, operating with distinct individualities, and the doctrine of the sedi
incarnation exemplified in Simon and Helen gave to it a picturesque realism.
The theology of the Apophasis is fundamentally philosophic, and the col-
lection of myths and metaphors which express it are of secondary import-
ance, serving principally to illustrate the cosmopolitan religious taste of
its author. Furthermore the cosmologies of the two systems are not only
notably different but irreconcilably contradictory. In Irenaeus the world
was created by angels, and the need for its redemption was due to their
mismanagement while its redemption was effected by a personal saviour.
The Old Testament was held to be inspired by the creating angels and to
have no importance for the redeemed. In the Apophasis the Old Testa-
ment is accepted but allegorized. The very idea of creation is inapplicable
to a world evolved out of fire and dissolved into it again, and the angels are
replaced by the abstract ji(a:. There is no room for a personal saviour,
and Helen is completely eliminated.
The figure of Simon is a favourite one in early Christian imaginative Simon in
literature, and the encounter between Peter and Simon (Acts viii. 18-24) pout Ane
especially supplied a dramatic theme which was developed with some skill fiction.
and variety in the apocryphal acts and romances. The most elaborate as
well as the most familiar of these stories is found in the Clementine literature,
a misreading of which supplied the Tiibingen school of three generations
ago with the principal support for their theory of early Christian history.
In both the Recognitions and Homilies Simon and Helen are placed in a
‘group of thirty disciples of John the Baptist.2 After the death of the
master Dositheus attempts to assume the lead, but is overcome by Simon
who convinces him that he is really 6 éorws.2 He adopts Helen as his
companion, and explains that she is a fallen power for whose salvation he
has appeared. Ina series of debates with Peter he maintains the existence
of two gods (Hom. iii. 2, Rec. ii. 38 ff., Hom. xix. 2 ff.) and declares that-
he is the representative of a higher divinity of whose existence Jehovah
the Lawgiver was unaware. This higher god even Jesus announced, though
he was a messenger of Jehovah and did not rightly understand his own
prophetic utterances (Hom. xviii. 11). The myth of the angels is told by
Peter to the crowd, and Simon is enraged at having his mysteries made
public. Peter’s words are unfortunately deeply corrupted in the Greek
text, which runs thus : mpets, | ® Lipwv, ex THs peydAns Suvdpews, Ere Te
Kal THs Kupias Aeyopevys, ov Aéyopev dvo0 ameotd Oar dyyéhovs, TOV
pev ert T) KTIOAL KOO Pov, TOV be ent To Bec Oat Tov VOp.ov" ovoe OTL
€avtdv exartos €ADdv, ef ols érolnoev, ws aitos Ov avbevtns adrdv
nyyeAev. od8€ 6 éotds, oTnodpevos, avTikeipevos (Hom. xviii. 12).
This obviously defies all attempts to construe it, though its general
meaning may be guessed.
The Clementine account of Simon’s activities and teaching appears to
1 It has, however, some resemblance to the system of Saturninus. Cf.
Tren. i. 18 (H.), i, 22 (Gr.).
2 Rec. ii. 7 ff., Hom. ii. 22 ff.
§ Rec. ii. 11, Hom. ii. 24. Cf. Hippolytus, Ref. vi. 17. 1-2.
VOL. V : M
The
Simonian
mysteries,
Simon’s
death.
162 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
be a composite of materials familiar from the heresiologists with a liberal
addition of fiction, but the obviously distinctive features caution against
oversimplifying the problem. The figure of 6 éorws recalls the Apophasis
megale, but the discussion of Scriptural texts, especially in proof of the
existence of two gods,? is not found in the extracts in Hippolytus, and is not
likely to have been invented by the author of the Clementine Grundschrift.
It seems more probable that this author had independent access to the
Apophasis or to some kindred document, extracts from which he adapted
to his exposition of Simon’s teaching.
The Simonian mysteries had a bad name among early Christian writers.
The priests, Irenaeus says, lived licentiously and devoted themselves to
the study and practice of magic. Hippolytus is more precise: of d¢ atOus
pupntat rod mAdvov Kal Lipwvos payou yuvdpevor TA Spora Spdcw*
ddoytotas packovtes Seiv piyvvcba, A€yovres, “aca yH yj, Kal od
Siadéper rod Tis omeiper, TAHV iva oreipy.” GAAG Kal paxapifovery
Eavrovs ert TH Eevy pikes, Tadtnv eivar A€yovtes Tiv Tedeiav aydmrnyv, Kal
TO dyvos dyiwy [erd]AAy[A]os dyvarOjoerau od yap pi) Kpareir Oar
abtovs ere Tivt vopifopevp kak, AeA’TpwvTar ydp.4 Of the ritual
we know only that it was secret and that Simon and Helen were
worshipped before statues of Zeus and Athena. In the liturgy they
were addressed as kipie and xvpia and never by their proper names,
so that an intruder who violated this custom could be recognized and
ejected.®
The death of Simon, like that of Judas Iscariot, was variously described.
In the Acts of Peter, Simon attempts a feat of levitation at Rome, but the
spell is broken by Peter and the magician crashes to earth so badly damaged
that he must be carried to the house of a colleague, Castor, at Tarracina,
1 Schmidt’s statement is obviously an oversimplification of the problem:
‘** Die gnostischen Lehren der Simon Magus und die Figur der Helena haben
fiir den Verfasser der Clementinen ebensowenig Bedeutung wie fiir den Autor
der Petrusakten. Beide schépfen ihre Nachrichten héchtestwahrscheinlich
aus Justins Syntagma, das wieder eine Quelle fiir Irenaeus gewesen sein muss,
denn die Anspielung an die Helena im Trojanischen Kriege findet sich wortlich
bei Iren. Adv. haer. i. 23. 2, ein sicheres Zeichen fiir eine benutzte schriftliche
Quelle,” Studien zu Pseudo-Clementinen (T'.U. 46. 1, Leipzig, 1929), p.51. But
the accounts in Iren. i. 26. 2, Rec. ii. 12, Hom. ii. 25 are not in literal agreement,
though all represent the same Simonian allegory of the Homeric figure, and it
is obvious that the Simonian system in the Clementines is either a genuine
one, but somewhat different in detail from those given in other sources, or a
patchwork of the author, materials for which have been drawn from several
sources.
2 Rec. ii. 38 ff., Hom. xvi. 5 ff. Was Simon’s claim to have been born
of a virgin (Rec. ii. 14) an invention of the Clementine author or a Simonian
doctrine ?
3 j, 16. 3 (H.). 4 Ref. vi. 19. 5.
5 Ref. vi. 20. 1-2. The appearance of tongues of fire over the baptismal
water referred to in Ps.-Cyprian, De rebaptismate, 16, is usually ascribed to the
Simonian rite, but this is not necessarily the meaning of the passage.
xi SIMON MAGUS 163
where he dies.1_ Hippolytus relates that Simon, seeing his end was near,
announced that if he were buried alive he would rise again on the third
day. Hippolytus concludes: ot pév otv 75 mpootaxOev eroinoav, 6 Se
Gmépeivev ws viv. od yap iv 6 Xpwrds.2 This account may well represent
some Christian’s conception of poetic justice to a daring and persistent
competitor of Christianity, but it is not impossible that it tells the truth.
Simon was not merely a heretic but a rival of Christianity, and an attempt
at the end to reproduce the miracle of the Resurrection is entirely in
character. His failure need have been no more of a blow to his followers
than the crucifixion of Jesus to the disciples, and could no doubt have been
satisfactorily explained so as to constitute no obstacle to the growth of
the sect.
Of the history of Simonianism, apart from its theology and a few details
of its worship, there is little knowledge, but there is no reason to suppose
that it was ever a religion of the magnitude or influence of Marcionism and
Valentinianism. It is certain from Justin’s remarks that there were
Simonians in Samaria in his time, and it is at least probable that there were
also some in Rome. Celsus mentions them in his attack on Christianity,
and Origen writing against him from Palestine circa a.D. 244-249 remarks
that only a handful of them remained.? This is fair evidence that they
were at least not flourishing in the East at this time, and the absence of
fresh information in Western sources after Hippolytus encourages the
supposition that the sect came to an end late in the third or early in the
fourth century.
1 Vercelli Acts, 32.
* Ref. vi. 20. 3.
3 Contra Celsum, i. 57 70édynce Se cal Tluwy 6 Lapapeds udyos 7H maryela
vpehécOar Tivds. Kal rore wev hrdryce, vuvi 5 Tos wdvTas ev TH olkoupern ovK
@ore Zimwviavods ebpeiv Tov apiOudy oluat TpidKxovra, Kal Taxa mAelovas elrov ToY
bvrwv. elot 5é wept tiv Tadaorivny opddpa édhaxiorou THs Sé Nowris olkovpévys
ovdapnod 7d bvoua avTod, Kal’ hy 7OEAnoE SbEav Tepl éavTod Siackeddoa. Cf. idem
vi. 11 ovdapyot yap ris olxounévns Liuwriavol. Cotelier (Patres Apostolici, i. p.
512 n. 2) suggests that the number thirty here is a reminiscence of the thirty
disciples of John the Baptist (Rec. ii. 8, Hom. ii. 23) as the Dositheans aré
credited with the same number of survivors, Contra Celsum vi. 11 oi 6é
AootOnvol ovdé mrpérepoy Fxpacav* vuv dh mavTed@s émideAolracw, wate Tov Sov
abr&v loropetcbat dpiOudy ov« elvar év Tots Tpidxovra. It is significant that in both
passages Dositheus and Simon are associated.
The later
Simonians,
The Persian
tribe of
Magi.
164 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
Notre XIV. Pavn anp THE Magus
By Artuur Darsy Nock?
SUMMARY
1. Magi to the time of Alexander the Great: early derogatory use of name
by Greeks and derived sense of ‘quack’: later revision of this
estimate : survival of derived use.
2. How far was the connexion of the Magi and magic justified? differ-
ence of ancient and modern ideas of religion and magic: the Magi
in origin dignified priesthood, but ultimate explanation of the use
of words derived from them to describe magic probably lies in their
strange foreign rites.
3. (i.) Development of Magus concept in Hellenistic period and its exten-
sion beyond racial boundaries.
(ii.) Canonization of the association with magic through the book ascribed
to Ostanes and similar works.
4, Summary on meaning of pdyos.
5. Jews as magicians and as religious confidants.
6. The story type—(1) faith produced by a miracle, (2) the conflict of
representatives of rival religions.
7. Its place in Acts.
In considering the story told in Acts xiii. 6-12 we have first to ask
ourselves what the word pwdyos means in a text of this period. We
shall see that it can mean one of two things: (1) a Persian fire-priest ;
(2) a magician or quack; and in order to put this double meaning
in its right setting we must survey a long process of development.
The subject is in fact a chapter in the history of the interaction of
East and West.
1. payos is a loanword in Greek, borrowed from Persian to
describe the priestly Median tribe. Members of this tribe performed
the daily worship of fire,” and one of them had to be present at every
sacrifice and sing a chant narrating the birth of the gods.* The name
Magus occurs once only in the Avesta, from which fact Moulton has
inferred that it was originally a name given to the tribe by outsiders *;
1 IT am indebted to Professors F. C. Burkitt, R. P. Casey, F. N. Robinson,
H. J. Rose, M. Rostovtzeff, G. A. S. Snyder, for help of various kinds.
2 Strabo xv. 3. 15, p. 733.
3 Herodotus i. 132.
4 Harly Zoroastrianism, pp. 428 ff. Cf. Chr. Bartholomae, Altiranisches
Worterbuch; H. Giimtert, Der arische Weltkénig und Heiland, pp. 108 f., on its
etymology. G. connects it with magha, ‘ might,’ ‘ power.’ On Persian religion
in general cf. now C. Clemen, Pauly-Wissowa, Supp. v. 679 ff.
XIV PAUL AND THE MAGUS 165
but its use in the Behistun inscription shows that it was an official
title in the sixth century B.c., and it remained such in Sassanid times.’
The caste has continued till our times, though the course of time has
brought changes.
The Magi are therefore a dignified priestly tribe like that of Levi
in Israel. An admirable illustration of one and his assistant in their
religious duties is afforded by a bas-relief of the fifth century B.c.
found at Dascylium and made by an artist who was either a Greek
or dominated by Greek art.*? Their functions are ritual, and they are
also credited with skill in interpreting dreams.®
It is therefore with some surprise that we find wdyos used in xéy05
the fifth century B.c. to mean ‘quack.’ So it is uttered in anger
by Oedipus of Tiresias in Sophocles, O.7. 387 (Tiresias is a
diviner, not a magician). In Euripides, Orestes 1497, Helen’s dis-
appearance is explained 7rot dapydKovow 7) pdywv Téxvacow 7
Oedv KAorais, and wdyor is employed of magicians in general. A
significant example of this sense is given by Hippocrates, On the
Sacred Disease, a work assigned to the end of the fifth century B.c.
The author is arguing against the view that epilepsy is a divine
disease and says, ch. 2, “ The men who first sanctified this disease
must, I think, have been of the type of our present-day magi and
purifiers and mendicants and humbugs. They actually pretend to
be very pious and to have special knowledge.” He uses the verb
payevdw in this sense, mentioning the claims of such men to bring
down the moon and to darken the sun and to make storm or calm,
which are the ordinary claims of a Greek magician.* The derivative
noun payeta appears, so far as I know, first in the Helena of Gorgias,
now commonly accepted as genuine of the same period. Gorgias
is discussing four possible explanations of Helen’s going to Troy—
divine compulsion, human force, persuasion by word, and the passion
of love. A propos of the third hypothesis he speaks of inspired
émwodat or charms, able to give pleasure or to remove pain, and
explains this by yonreia, continuing yonreias d€ Kal payeias Sucoai
TéxvaL evpynvTat, ai eior Puyfs dpunuata Kai Sdéyns amatiwata.®
1 K. Herzfeld, Patkuli, i. 80, 82, magus of magi, 121, 213.
2 Macridy Bey, Bull. Corr. Hell. xxxvii. pp. 348 ff. pl. viii.; F. Cumont,
Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain, p. 135, Fig. 10, 275, note 29.
. § Moulton, pp. 182 ff.; C. Clemen, Die griechischen und lateinischen Nachrichten
aber die persische Religion, pp. 205 ff. Achmes in his Oneirocriticon gives what
profess to be Indian, Persian, and Egyptian explanations. I do not know whether
they have any relation to their supposed origins.
* Ch. 3 bors olds Te mepixabalpwy éorl Kal payetwv amdyew Toodrov wdos:
4 i yap dvOpwros payetwr kal OUwv cernvny Kabapjoe Kal Lov ddariel kal xewova
kal evdlay moujoer. In Plato, Rep. p. 572 B, udyor=clever deceivers.
5 Something seems to be lacking from the text: the two arts are probably,
as Immisch suggests, prose and verse.
166 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
This passage is very important, for the matter-of-fact way in which
Gorgias uses payeia as an amplificatory synonym for yonreta
indicates that, whether the abstract noun was or was not already
common in this sense, he could depend on his hearers so under-
standing it. When Plato, Alcib. I. p. 122 4, says wayeiav . . . TH
Zwpodorpov Tob ‘Qpoudlov—éeore dé tobro Gedv Oepazeia he has
to explain his meaning.’ Aristotle and Dinon protested against
the common view, Aristotle saying t)v 5é€ yontuknv payeiav odd’
éyvwoar to avoid the ordinary assumption,’ but the use in question
of zdyos remained general in Greece, pdyos being a more colourful
word than ydns, and gave its sense to magus. That this linguistic
practice became universal appears from the use of magicus in Roman
law.’ How denuded of special and ethnic significance pdyos became
is shown by the statement of Vettius Valens, writing in the second
or third century, that a particular stellar conjuncture makes
magi, cheats, sacrificers, doctors, astrologers, and members of other
kindred trades‘: again in the Confessio Sancti Cypriani the saint
studies in Egypt and Chaldaea but not with the Magi, although
he says of himself (ch. 7) dvopacros Hunv puayos piAdcodgos,® and
in the cognate ‘Opodoyia edited by Radermacher is Kuzpuavos 6
pidyos, busied with payeias, and possessed of payikat ypadal.®
Further, Pausanias v. 27. 3 speaking of the bronze horse dedi-
cated by Phormis at Olympia says d57jAa d€ Kat ddAws Eortw avdpos
pdyouv codia yevéobas 7a ovpBaivovra T@ iam and passes on to
say that he has seen another wonder in Lydia, uaywv pévror codias
ovee adTo amnAAaypévov. This other wonder is the kindling of
the wood by a Magus at Hierocaesarea and Hypaepa. Clearly to
Pausanias pdyos connotes in primis simply ‘ magician.’
1 A similar matter-of-fact use in Theophrastus, Historia Plantarum, ix. 15.7,
a propos of moly: xphcbat dé aire mpbs Te TH drekipdpuaka kal rds paryelas (A.
Hort translates ‘ against spells and magic arts,’ but the meaning is probably
‘for antidotes and magic arts’); a definition in Apuleius, Apol. 26. So also
Porphyry and Pseudo-Chrysostom ; cf. Cumont, T'extes et monuments figurés
relatifs aux mystéres de Mithra, i. 36,.
2 Cited by Diogenes Laertius in his proem. Aristotle’s statement is import-
ant in view of his and his school’s interest in Persian thought. A work called
Mavyixés was ascribed by some to him, by others to Antisthenes.
3 Mommsen, Rémisches Strafrecht, pp. 639 ff., and p. 173 infra.
4 Anthologiae, p. 74. 17 Kroll, rove? yap pdyous mAdvous Ovras larpovs dorpo-
Néyous dxAaywyods kal tpamefiras mapaxapdxras duovoypddous did Te mavoupylas
kal émiBécews kal d6dov ras mpdéers Stovxobvras. Clem. Al. Strom. vi. 3. 31, says
Tovs év KXewvais wdyous of the local hail-watchers.
5 In the Cyprian of Baluzius and in A.SS. Sept. vii. 204 ff. So Herodotus
and Dinon ap. Cic. De divin. i. 46.
8 Griechische Quellen zur Faustsage (Sitzungsber. Ak. Wiss. in Wien, 206 iv.),
pp. 84, 16, 104.
xIV PAUL AND THE MAGUS 167
2. Can we explain this applied use of udyos as resting on true The origin
observation of the magical practices of Persian Magi, as in fact such Gana
a generalization as that by which astrologers in general were designated “°"™*
as Chaldaei? This is a question very hard to answer, for of the
character of the Magi in pre-Sassanian times we know hardly anything
except what Greek writers tell us. Now there is nothing to suggest
that any of them were familiar with the Persian language, and it
must always be remembered that the Greek was seldom a good
observer of strange religions, prone as he was to hasty conclusions
and identifications and to a contempt or to a veneration which
were equally uncritical. In any case all that is asserted by Greeks
professing to describe the Magi is that they interpreted dreams,*
and that by their charms they caused a violent wind on the Strymon
to stop. The second statement may well mean no more than
that they invoked good spirits or used apotropaic rites to avert
evil spirits.* It is probably in the order of prayers for rain or the
celebration of the Mass for special purposes, which an alien might
describe as ezwdai.* The observations made by those Greeks who
had studied the Magi of any particular place are in striking contrast
to the generalizations of those Greeks who talked vaguely. It is
well worthy of note that among the various charges brought by
St. Basil against the payovoator who inherited their tradition magic
does not appear.°
If we turn to our Persian sources we read of what is in them
called by words corresponding to magic as something on the side
of evil in the continual cosmic struggle. The Zoroastrian confession
1 Yasna 30. 3 refers in one translation to a dream vision, but is hardly
relevant to oneiromancy as a practice.
2 Herodotus vii. 191. Cf. N. Terzaghi, Arch. f. Relig. xi. pp. 145 ff., for the
scourging of the Hellespont; Cumont, Comptes rendus de l Acad. des Inscr.,
1917, 278,, on the throwing of chains into it. Both are what we should call
sympathetic magic.
3 So Rapp, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenldndischen Gesellschaft, xx. p. 77.
Of course the control of weather is commonly ascribed to Geto dvdpes like
Empedocles (Diels, Fragm. d. Vorsokratiker*, i. 201. 5).
4 IT am not speaking of the abuses discussed by G. L. Kittredge, Witchcraft
in Old and New England, pp. 147, 466 f.; they are instructive as an example
of the possibility of decline later suggested for the Magi.
5 Hp. 258 (Migne xxxii. 952 f.): so also Epiphanius, Adv. Haereses, iii. 13.
Strabo, xv. 2. 39, p. 762, in a list of prophets honoured by various peoples
includes oi wdyou kal vexvoudyTes Kal ére of Neydpmevor Nekavoudvrers Kal Vdpoudvres.
Here the practice is associated with Persia (cf. Boehm, Pauly-Wissowa ix. 79 f.)
but not certainly ascribed to the Magi. (A similar list, Brahmans, Magi, ‘EA\jvwv
oi Peodoyixdéraro., is given by Proclus, Comm. in Timaeum, vol. i. p. 208
Diehl; here they are adduced as sages whose example supports the practice
of prayer.)
168 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
of faith includes a renunciation of ‘‘ the Daevas and all possessed
by them, the sorcerers and their devices, and every existing being
of the sort,” * and the legends of Zoroaster tell how sorcerers and
enchanters endeavoured to destroy him when young,” and how he
struggled against superstition, sorcery, and devil-worship.* These
traditions give us the conscious orientation of Zoroastrianism, though
it is indeed the purified and canonized Zoroastrianism of the Sassanian
eriod.
: Modern students looking in Persian tradition for an explanation
of the Greek use of pdyos and payea as typical words have drawn
attention to a talisman given by Zoroaster,* to his possession of a
feather of the bird Varengana credited with the power of giving
protection and glory,° and to his use of water from the sacred river
Daitya mixed with consecrated hdm-juice as an elixir.° But surely
these things are in the world of folktale, not of serious magic. Em-
phasis has been laid also on the Persian use of spells for medicinal
and other apotropaic purposes.’ This was no doubt common, and
may be due in part to Babylonian analogies,* but it should be noted
first that the use of these proceedings is world-wide and was familiar
in Greece, secondly that medical magic is not associated with the
Magi in particular.’ The Magi are not specialists in this side of life,
though their presence in such an act might be thought useful. So
1 Yasna 12. 5 (transl. by L. H. Mills, Sacred Books of the East, xxxi. p. 249);
cf. Cumont, T'extes et monuments, i. 141, for parallels.
2 A. V. W. Jackson, Zoroaster, pp. 10 ff.
3 Id., Zoroastrian Studies, pp. 27, 103, 280. This picture of Zoroaster sur-
vives in Manichee times (if we accept Le Coq’s identification, Sitzungsber. Preuss.
Akad., 1908, 398).
4 Zoroastrian Studies, p. 255.
5 Yast 14. 35; cf. Geiger, Ostiranische Kultur im Altertum, p. 332.
8 Zoroastrian Studies, pp.280f. For miracles later ascribed to him by Shara-
stani, etc., cf. R. J. H. Gottheil, Studies in Honour of Henry Drisler, p. 50. Like
the subjugation of the daevas by Jamshid (Firdausi, Shanama, i. p. 33) they are
notrelevant. Late tradition makes Zoroaster an arch-magician. Jackson cites,
op. cit. p. 83, texts from Clement and Minucius stating the claims of the Magi to
subdue demons, but the latter expressly cites Ostanes, and see p. 178 infra.
7 Vendidad vii. 44, and ix. (for cleansing from defilement by a demon): in-
cidentally the process is thought of as driving away diseases, cf. xxii. 21, p. 234,
transl. Darmsteter (Sacred Books of the East, iv.). In general cf. A. J. Carnoy in
Encycl. Rel. Eth. viii. p. 294, and above all, Le Muséon, ser. iii. vol. i. pp. 171 ff.
8 Cf. Cumont, Religions orientales*, p. 174; R. Campbell Thompson, ‘ Assyrian
Medical Texts’ in Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. xix. No. 3, pp. 29 ff. One clear instance
of Persian borrowing from Babylon is the festival of Sakaia (C. Clemen, Die
Religionen der Erde, p. 152).
® Vendidad vii. 44 mentions healers. Vendidad vii. 41 specially says “a
healer shall heal a priest for the blessing of the just.” Vendidad xx. refers to
a mythical priest-healer.
xIv PAUL AND THE MAGUS 169
now among the Parsis in Persia a mobed is paid to read passages
from the Yasna, the Yasts, or the Khordah-avesta, in order to conjure
away the evil eye or cure a sick child.’ In apotropaic rites the Magi
were no doubt paramount: Plutarch mentions that side of their
activity.”
Such proceedings were in ancient civilizations and are in many
areas to-day the equivalent of our antiseptics and inoculations.
Man thinks himself to be surrounded by a whole world of evil powers
against whom he must arm. Mayeia as later understood includes
such methods of self-protection, but it includes much more; and
in particular methods of divination by water, of influencing the
affections of others, and of inflicting physical harm on them. In
this range it is as remote from the normal standards of Persian
priesthood as would be temple prostitution from those of the
Catholic Church, and it is quite clear that if the Magi had contact
with magic they were not professional magicians in the later sense
of payoe.
How then did this terminology arise? To answer this we must abnor
consider what we mean and what the ancients mean by magic ; other- magic. :
wise there is a danger of real confusion of thought.
In the ordinary colloquial language of educated men ‘ magic’
and ‘magical’ have inherited most of the meanings discussed in
the previous paragraphs. Neither has any longer any connexion
with its original Persian surroundings. But both have retained
the rather contemptuous connotation belonging to them in Greek
and Latin literature, so that they customarily afford terms of abuse
for religious ceremonies which are regarded as superstitious. This
usage is the natural continuation of the classical use of magus and
wu.
In the terminology used by students of the history of religion
it has been found convenient to use ‘magic’ in a clearer and
narrower sense. In this sense it means the attempt to divert the
course of nature by methods which to our science appear to be of a
non-rational kind, or which to the user appear to rest on some hidden
and peculiar wisdom: the charming of warts we call magic, birth-
control we do not. We distinguish it from science which proceeds
by rational methods, and from religion which if it seems to influence
the course of events does so by asking some superior being or beings
to do what is needed instead of either operating directly by some
1 Carnoy, Muséon, l.c. pp. 183 f. We find an interesting dedication to
Artemis Anaitis (probably from Gjeuldi) by a woman, repirrwua éxovea xal
étgoGetoa bd ris iepeias (priestess of Anahita), Cumont, Comptes rendus de
? Acad. des Inscr., 1915, 271. The goddess as represented on the accompanying
relief is of the type of the Ephesian Artemis.
2 De Iside et Osiride, 46, p. 369 E.
Its inappro-
priateness
to the
ancient
world.
170 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
kind of sympathetic action or again compelling the superior being
or beings.
Now this modern use of ‘ magic’ does not fit the ancient world.*
Certain public practices which we should characterize as magical
are not so characterized. The communal rain-making at Crannon
in Thessaly is mentioned as a peculiar local claim,” that on mount
Lykaion in Arcadia as a rite, like the aquaelicium at Rome®*: it is
in fact like prayers for rain or a procession to bless the crops. The
envotitement of citizens who disloyally failed to obey a call to go off
to a colony, by burning wax images of them, is recorded in a public
document at Cyrene as a perfectly natural proceeding. Like the
burning of hostile armour to Lua Rua at Rome it is mentioned as
a rite: no deity is mentioned.‘ Again, the use of émqwédat or spells
is not confined to magicians. The doctor used them, as Sophocles,
Ajax 584, reminds us.*
There is not, then, as with us, a sphere of magic in contrast to
the sphere of religion. Further, the words used to designate magical
acts do not for the most part possess a precise and technical meaning.
diAtpov, love-charm, is indeed fairly specialized, but it also is used
in a good sense as ‘ winning attractiveness.’ ddpyaxor is drug as well
as poison or magical material.® émwdy means charm, but Aeschylus
feels no scruple in making Apollo use it metaphorically and say,
“The Father (Zeus) made no spells for these troubles ” (the shedding
of blood), rovrwv érmdas odK émoincev matip"; the derivative
€mwodds is used with no depreciatory nuance ‘to charm towards’ or
‘to charm from.’* yds, indeed, is either used literally for a wizard
(as in the Phoronis, an epic thought to be not later than the seventh
1 Cf. Fr. Pfister’s admirable article ‘Epode’ in Pauly-Wissowa, Supp. iv.
323 ff. P. gives an excellent collection of material and conclusions which seem
to me very sound.
2 Antigonus, ‘Ioropidv rapaddtéwy cwvarywryy 15.
3 Pausanias viii. 38. 4; Heraclides, Descriptio Graeciae, ii. 8 (Miiller,
Geographi Graect Minores, i. 107), describes a custom on Mount Pelion which
may have had this purpose, rain-making (probably) at Olbia by the priest
of Zeus Olbios; E. H. Minns, Scythians and Greeks, p. 476,. Note the Pharisee
rain-making ceremony of Sukkot, L. Finkelstein, Harv. Theol. Rev. xxii. p. 195.
For rain-making in a late Jewish collection of stories, W. Bousset, Nachr. Gott.
Gel. Ges., 1916, p. 484. :
4 Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft, xxiv. pp. 172 f. (As Deubner has argued,
it is likely that such rites not directed to personal deities had no small part in
early Roman religion.) We may compare the burning in effigy by the Holy
Office of offenders whose persons could not be secured.
5 So the son of Autolycus, Odyss. xix. 457: the Cyclops can use one if he
knows it (Euripides, Cyclops, 646).
8 Cf. Journ. Theol. Stud. xxx. p. 391. 7 Zum. 649.
8 Plato, Leges, p. 671 4; Phaedo, p. 78 A.
on
XIV PAUL AND THE MAGUS 171
century B.C.'), or metaphorically for a quack, humbug, impostor.
And yet Plato did not feel that the operation of the ydns differed
toto caelo from ordinary cult. He makes Diotima say in her discourse
on the functions of daemones: ‘‘ Through their care goes the whole
science of divination, the art of the priests and of all those concerned
with sacrifices and initiations and spells and all divining and goeteia.
God has no intercourse with men: it is through this race that all
intercourse happens between gods and men.” * Spells and goeteia
are on a footing with sacrifice and divination, just as in Rep. 364B
religious impostors claim power obtained Ovaiats Te Kal émwdais, by
sacrifice and spells, and in the passage quoted earlier from Hippocrates
mageia is classified with other popular beliefs, and the antithesis is
one of supernaturalism and non-supernaturalism. So later Pliny,
before treating of curative spells, asks polleantne aliquid uerba et
incantamenta carminum, and in answering gives among his illustrations
of people’s unconscious faith in this power: quippe wictimas caedi
sine precatione non uidetur referre aut deos rite consuli. He refers
to fixed public forms of prayer, and the deuotio used by the Decii,
and Tuccia’s prayer.®
Pfister rightly concludes, ‘‘ dass kein prinzipieller Unterschied
zwischen Zauberspruch und Gebet so wenig wie zwischen Zauberei
und Religion besteht.”* This is true, and incidental ancient
attempts at theoretical differentiation are clearly the products of
individual sophistication.®
What then do the ancients mean by magia? Broadly speaking Magia.
three things: the profession by private individuals of the possession
of technical ability enabling them to supply recipes or perform rites
to help their clients and damage their clients’ enemies; the use by
such clients or by others of such proceedings to damage enemies ;
and—corresponding to the vague modern use already mentioned—
the religions belonging to aliens or on any general ground disapproved.
1 Kinkel, Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, i. 211, No. 2 (of the Idaean
Dactyls: the passage treats of their discovery of iron). For the date of the poem
ef. Schmid-Stihlin, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, i. p. 294. Herodotus
ii. 33 describes dwellers in the Sahara as yéyres, and in iv. 105 he says that the
Neuri, a Scythian tribe, are probably y. since it is reported that each of them
becomes a wolf for a few days of every year and then resumes his shape. Here,
as in Plato, Rep. p. 380 D, there is a nuance of irony.
2 Symp. p. 202 EB. rederai, translated ‘initiations,’ has a wider range of
meaning ; cf. H. Bolkestein, Religionsgesch. Versuche u. Vorarbeiten, xX1. ii. p. 57.
8 N.H. xxviii. 10 ff. Cf. Gnomologium Epicteteum, 67 (88), in H. Schenkl’s
Epictetus, ed. mai.? p. 492, comep 6 iros ob mepiuéver Nerds Kal yonrelas iv’ dvaretAy.
* Pauly-Wissowa, Supp. iv. 325. 7.
5 Suidas s.vv. wayela, wayix?, yonreia. Such a definition is akin to the
Peripatetic idea of derdacuovia as contrasted with edcé8ea and with ddebrns
(P. J. Koets, Accordacuovta).
Roman law
and magic.
172 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY Nok
The third use is natural. We find the supposed priest of Dionysus
in Euripides, Bacchae 234, described as yons éawdds Avdias amo
xOoves.' Again Pliny includes human sacrifice and Druidism under
the head of magic.? In the Acta disputationis S. Achatit 5 the Roman
magistrate is made to say ideo magi estis quia nouum nescio quod
genus religionis inducitis. If we return for a moment to Persia
we there find magic closely associated with the older worship which
Zoroastrianism has sought to replace.
Roman law had of course to deal with various practices which
fall within the sphere of what we call magic. In early times
the law of the Twelve Tables dealt with attempts to remove or
appropriate one’s neighbour’s crops by spells. Later we find the
law prohibiting nocturnal sacrifices, which might mean seditious
meetings, or such a danger to public order as the movement re-
pressed by the Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus, and liable to
punish professional activity in magic. It is clear that the presiding
magistrate must have had considerable discretionary power in
determining what was punishable as magic, and that under the
Empire the suspicion of political intrigue intensified the official
attitude against magicians.* It was so with Chaldaei or astrologers.
1 Cf. Hubert in Daremberg-Saglio, Dict. Antiq. iii. 1499 f.; Pfister, J.c. 342 £.
Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. iv. 16, tells how the hierophant at Eleusis sought to
exclude Apollonius of Tyana as ui xa@apds Ta Saudvia. This may be genuine
feeling against a yéns (Farnell, Cults, iii. p. 168), but it is really just background
for the hero’s prophecy and hangs together with the idea that the Oetos dvip
has an inherent priestliness which dispenses him from ordinary requirements :
ef. Porphyry, Vita Plotini 10 éxetvous (sc. rods Oeovs) Set pds éue EpxerOat, ob Eue
mpos éxelvovs. (But in Marinus, Vita Procli 19, we read that the philosopher
should be the hierophant of the whole universe : we have to do with a man who
was pratiquant.) Cf. Apollonius Tyan. Hp. 16 udyous oter detv dvoudfecOar rods
amd IvOayépov girocddpous, GSE rou Kal rods dard "Opdéws* eyed 5é kal rods dd Tod
Servos olwar Sety dvoudferOar pdyous, ef mwéddovow elvar Oetok re Kal Sixacor.
Neopythagoreanism was particularly open to accusations of magic. There is
an instructive parallelism between the charges made against Apollonius and
those made against the Apostles in apocryphal Acts; cf. O. Weinreich, Gebet
und Wunder, p. 196 (=Genethliakon W. Schmid, p. 362).
SN... xxx. 12 f.
3 Mommsen, Rémisches Strafrecht, pp. 639 ff.; P. Vallette, L’ Apologie
d@ Apulée, pp. 34ff.; Fr. Beckmann, Zauberei und Recht in Roms Frithzeit
(Osnabriick, 1923); Ed. Fraenkel, Gnomon, i. pp. 185 ff. The meaning of mala
carmina has been disputed. The phrase can cover ‘satire’ and ‘imprecations
to do harm,’ for the two things are closely allied and sometimes combined ;
cf. F. N. Robinson, Studies in the History of Religions presented to C. H. Toy,
pp. 95 ff., and G. L. Hendrickson, Am. Journ. Phil. xlvi. pp. 101 ff. Note that
Cato the elder, De re rustica, 160, records medical spells.
I take it that the gravamen of the charge against Apuleius lay in the fact
that the disposition of Pudentilla’s property was affected. For the official
attitude cf. Dio Cassius lii. 36. 3 rods dé 57 waryeuras ravu ovK etvat mpoojKel.
es
xIV PAUL AND THE MAGUS 173
They were not as a rule people of such position as to be able to get
very much attention paid to their possible rights.
One text which we must consider is Constantine’s rescript, dated constan-
June 22, 321, in Codex Theodosianus ix. 16. 3,‘ and assigned by pa do
Seeck to May 23, 3187: eorwm est scientia punienda et seuerissimis
merito legibus uindicanda qui magicis adcincti artibus aut contra
hominum moliti salutem aut pudicos ad libidinem defixisse animos
detegentur: nullis wero criminationibus implicanda sunt remedia
humanis quaesita corporibus aut in agrestibus locis, ne maturis
uindemiis metuerentur wimbres aut ruentis grandinis lapidatione
quaterentur, innocenter adhibita suffragia quibus non cuiusque salus
aut existimatio laederetur sed quorum proficerent artes ne diuina
munera et labores hominum sternerentur. Now it does not follow from
this that magic to do harm or inspire love was grouped with weather
charms and medical charms under a single category of magic in the
anthropological sense.* There is no mention in this edict of the
punishment appropriate to magi. Its purpose is one of toleration,
of defining what was anyhow safe and admissible: just as a rescript:
of Diocletian and Maximian says, artem geometriae discere atque
exercert publice intersit, ars autem mathematicae damnabilis interdicta
est. Such definition was clearly called for. Later in the fourth
century we find many condemnations for acts which on Constantine’s
definition of magic were regarded as licit ; these may be in part due
to the official fear of treason, but are perhaps as much due to the
intense popular fear of those guos maleficos ob facinorum magnitudinem
uolgus appellat,® and to the feeling that it is dangerous to the com-
munity to have in its midst men who may draw down divine anger
on everyone.’ A very clear instance of the intensity of this terror
of magic is a rescript of Constantius: Multi magicis artibus ausi
elementa turbare, uitas insontium labefactare non dubitant et Manibus
accitis audent uentilare, ut quisque suos conficiat malis artibus inimicos ;
1 =Codex Iustinianus, ix. 18. 4.
2 Regesten der Kaiser und Pdapste, 62. 16, 166.
3 Seneca, Nat. Quaest, iv. 6 b, 6-9, illustrates the methods used at Cleonae
to avert hail by referring to the injunction in the Twelve Tables, ne quis alienos
fructus excantassit, and Clement of Alexandria, Strom. vi. 3. 31, speaks of rovs
év KiXewvais udyous, but both write after the coming into being of the Ostanes
literature discussed later.
4 Cod. Iust. ix. 18. 2.
5 Cod. Theod. xvi. 16. 4: for the word cf. S. Augustine, Ciw. dei, x. 9;
Mommsen, op. cit. pp. 639 f. For the state of feeling cf. J. Maurice, Comptes
rendus de l’ Académie des Inscriptions, 1926, pp. 132 ff., and later analogies in
Kittredge, Witchcraft, pp. 358 f.
® Cf. Deuteron. xviii. 10-14, cited in Mosaicarum et Romanarum legum
collatio, xv. (Seckel-Kuebler, Iurisprudentiae anteiustinianae reliquiae’, 1. ii.
379).
174 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
hos, quoniam naturae peregrini sunt, feralis pestis absumat.* This is
hysteria. The line drawn by Constantine became normal.’? It should
be remarked that the provisions against magici libri did not affect
the preservation of the relevant portions of the elder Pliny and the
composition and preservation of the work of Marcellus of Bordeaux,
and later at Byzantium of the Geoponica.* Nor is there any reason
to suppose that the law took cognisance of theurgy such as is
associated with the Oracula Chaldaica and is handled by Iamblichus,
On the Mysteries, or of such a séance as that described by Porphyry
in his Life of Plotinus, ch. 10, though the animus of St. Augustine’s
polemic against theurgy suggests that it was not negligible at
the time.*
There is then no sphere of magic at once distinguishable from the
sphere of religion and from that of science, though magic and religion
together can be opposed to science, as we saw in Hippocrates (so Pliny,
having incidentally handled magicas uanitates previously & propos
of herbs and animals, etc., passes to a special treatment in xxx.).
What gets the name of magic is a varied complex of things, mainly
qua professional or qua criminal in intent or qua alien. We may
explain the selection of udyos as a typical name, and the formation
of the noun payeia from it as due to the impression made on un-
friendly Ionian spectators by Persian priests, with their queer
garments and tiaras and mouth masks—as we see them on the relief
from Dascylium—performing uncomprehended rites, uttering un-
intelligible prayers, and indispensable at sacrifice. Egypt had what
1 Cod. Theod. ix. 16. 5, dated December 4, 357, which Seeck, 47. 5, 203,
corrects to 356. The same tone is apparent in Cod. Theod. ix. 16. 6 (July 5, 358
in the Cod. ; July 5, 357 according to Seeck 204).
2 Maurice, J.c. p. 187. Giving an abortive or a love philtre was punishable
in any case (Paulus, Sententiae, v. 23. 14). In connexion with rulings on magic
Paulus states that if a man dies of a drug given for his health the giver is
punished (v. 23. 19).
3 The magic cryptogram published by A. S. Hunt, Proc. Brit. Acad. xv., is
in cryptogram no doubt because of the professional importance of secrecy.
4 Ciuitas dei, x. 9, where note the distinction drawn by Neoplatonists
between this theurgia and magic. On these rites cf. J. Bidez, Revue belge de
philologie et @ histoire, vii. p. 1477 ; some knowledge of them may be behind the
passage of Confessio S. Cypriani discussed by me in J.7'.S. xxviii. (I hope to
return to this topic: it seems to me that we may have to reckon there also
with material like the Testament of Solomon.) A reference to these rites I
suspect in Julian, Contra Christianos, p. 197 Zeds . . . dé5wxev juiv dud Tov
lepav rexvav éricxeyw. The difficulties in which Psellus found himself were
raised by Christian orthodoxy ; cf. J. Bidez, Cat. MSS. alchimiques grecs, vi. 115.
5 For an Ionian impression compare the statement of Heraclitus ap. Clem.
Alex. Protr. ii. p. 16. 24 Stahlin, that he made his oracular utterances vuxrimddos
udyous Bdxxors Mivars wioras, “ to night-roamers, magi, bacchants, maenads,
initiates”; he threatens them with fiery destruction and taunts them with the
a
xIV PAUL AND THE MAGUS 175
an anthropologist recognizes as magic—constraints of gods, threats
to gods, and so on—and had it deeply embedded in its religion: but
not in such a form that a casual Greek observer would have known
of it. It was the external aspect of Persian cultus which counted,
not the meaning of the rite. Increasing information in the fourth
century B.C. brought with it a more favourable picture of the
Magi, but even in the second century of our era the fire-worship
remains a mysterious thing to Pausanias, who says that the Magus
read charms, and the dry wood piled on the altar must kindle
without a flame.
The terminology gained importance, as we shall see. One cause
may be mentioned now. No one would call himself a ydéns: it meant
quack and had no background. But pdyos, while it meant quack,
had a dignified history.. Even to Greeks who thought of the Magi
as barbarians they might appear to possess a certain amount of
hold over the supernatural: this could arise, not from an in-
tellectuai or religious conviction but from a feeling, “they are the
old priests and there may be something in them.” Englishmen in
the eighteenth century went to the old Royal family at Paris to
be touched for the King’s evil. There is even a story of George I.
referring an applicant to the Pretender—with success, it is said.’
piayos and payeia were definitely adopted by the profession, as the
magic papyri show.”
3. In the Hellenistic period we have to reckon with two factors. The Hellen-
One is the modification of the position of the Magi, the other the “"° ?"*-
creation of supposedly Magian literature in Greek. The first of these
may have affected the history of this terminology, the second
certainly has.
(i.) First, the position of the caste of Magi was not what it had been. The position
Those who were in Persia probably lacked their old official standing Behar
between Alexander’s conquest and the Parthian national revival in
the second century B.c., and even in that they did not have the
authority which the Sassanid régime gave to them in the third
unworthiness of their mysteries. (At the same time it is possible that Heraclitus
was influenced by Zoroastrianism; cf. L. A. Stella, Rendiconti Acc. Lincei,
1927, pp. 571 ff.) Itis possible that the Persians regarded Artemis of Ephesus as
the same as Anahita; they certainly used the temple; cf. Ch. Picard, .Lphése
et Claros, pp. 606 ff. But note the arguments of W. H. Buckler and D. M.
Robinson, Am. J. Arch. 2nd ser. xvii. (1913) pp. 368 ff., against any substantial
Persian influence on the cult of Artemis at Sardis (though their scruples as
to the existence of priestesses for Anahita are weakened by C. R. Ac. Inscr.,
1915, 271, cited above, p. 169).
1 E. L. Hussey, Archaeological Journal, x. p. 201.
* Cf. on them my article in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, xv.
176 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
century A.D.’ In tradition Alexander appears as their enemy and
the destroyer of the old Avesta.* Be this as it may (and it is of course
incompatible with all that we know of Alexander’s policy towards
the conquered), there may well have been some relaxation of their
organization. Magians may have sometimes married outside the
caste,* and it seems just possible that aliens (presumably by some
rite of adoption) were admitted occasionally to priestly positions,
just as later Tabari records that Mihr-Nars destined his first son for
the ecclesiastical career, and that Bahram-Gotz gave to him the
second position in the Church.* This, dike the tale of the conversion
of a Greek who is given a high religious position,® may be purely
legendary. A Musulman was not perhaps sensitive to the minutiae
of Persian religion ; but the tale looks like an act of special favourit-
ism indicating the possibility of elasticity.
Whatever happened in the native haunts of the Magi, their
position im partibus was gravely affected. The Persian régime
had naturally caused Magi to take up their abode in cities of
Asia Minor, at least in those cities which were garrison towns
or administrative centres. After the overthrow of the old order
some of them stayed, and we know of them not merely in those
kingdoms which cultivated Persian traditions (Commagene, Cappa-
docia, Pontus), but also in Greek cities (Hypaepa and Hierocaesarea
1 Cf. A. Christensen, L’Hmpire des Sassanidae (D. kgl. Danske Vidensk.
Selsk. Skriften, 7 Raekke, historisk og filosofisk Afd. i. 1, 1907), pp. 17 f., 20, 34,
64 ff.: for Sassanian assertion of faith on their coins, Herzfeld, Paikuli, i.
pp. 44 ff.; for a supplement to Christensen, E. Stein, Byz.-neugriech. Jahr-
biicher, i. pp. 50 ff. (political influence of this church at its height in middle of
fifth century 4.D., strong from end of fourth to end of fifth).
2 Gottheil, Hssays Drisler, p. 35 (a prophecy).
3 Cf. Cumont, T'extes et monuments, i. p. 239 (in the Dinkart); Clemen, Re-
ligionen, p, 161 (modern Parsis).
4 Th. Néldeke, Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sassaniden aus
der arabischen Chronik des Tabari, p. 452.
5 A. V. W. Jackson, Zoroaster, pp. 89f. Normally speaking the hereditary
principle was vital, as it still is among the Parsees (J. H. Moulton, The Treasure
of the Magi, pp. 132 f.); cf. A. Christensen, pp. 20, 34, 65, for organization, and
Clemen, Religionen, p. 161, for the double initiatory rites now admitting to the
Parsee priesthood a man born in the class. In Acta S. Anastasii, p. 2 b7 Usener,
we read of A. being taught Magian lore by hisfather. Cf. Apuleius, Aol. 26 “nec
ulli temere inter Persas concessum est magum esse, haud magis quam regnare.”’
Philo, De specialibus legibus, iii. 100, says that no one was allowed to become
king among the Persians ef wh mpérepov rod Mdywv yévous Kexowwwrnkas TvyxXdvot.
This is, however, probably only a pointed way of putting what we read in
Plato, Alcib. I. p. 122 a, Cicero, De diuin. i. 91, of the king’s education by the
Magi—or a misunderstanding. On priestly families in Zoroastrian Armenia
cf.'M. H. Ananikian in Hastings, Hnc. Rel. Hih. i. pp. 801 f.: he remarks that
there is no record of a Magian caste in Armenia.
xIv PAUL AND THE MAGUS 177
in Lydia). Bardaisan in his Laws of the Countries, § 38, states that
some of the Persians were scattered and lived in Media, Atropatene,
Parthia, Egypt, and Phrygia, and were in every country called
Magi. Now Magian colonies in the kingdoms might without
difficulty keep up their traditions, though even there they could
not avoid contact with the Greek culture around them’; but
in Greek cities they were far more exposed to change. As their
numbers dwindled they may very well have admitted others to their
ranks by some sort of adoption. And it will be remembered that
Pausanias speaks of the sanctuaries at Hierocaesarea and Hypaepa
as belonging to Lydians called Persic, Avdots émixAnv Ilepatxois.*
Further, a Graeco-Aramaic bilingual inscription found at Farasa
(the ancient Ariaramneia-Rhodandos in Cappadocia), and assigned
by H. Grégoire to the first century of or before our era, runs.thus:
Laydpios Mayladd]pvov orparny[o]s ’Aptapapvet(as) eudyevoe
MiOpy.? That is, Sagarios became a Magos of Mithras,‘ or officiated
as Magos for Mithras.’ It would not be safe to insist in Greek of
this type that the aorist must have its proper significance * became ’
rather than ‘was’; but the use of the verb is really unmistakable.
If Sagarios had been of the priestly Magian tribe, we should have
had not Laydpuos otpatnyos . . . eudyevoe, but Laydpios pdyos
. €otpaTnynoe. It may further be remarked that this emphasis
on Mithras belongs to the Hellenistic development of Persian religious
ideas. Now in Mithraism those who had reached the fifth grade of
initiation were called Persae, and it is quite thinkable that this implied
something like St. Paul’s view of Gentile Christians as belonging to
the new Israel. Persia, like Israel, was a holy nation with its hope ;
and, as Meyer has reminded us, Zoroastrianism was universalist.®
So the pdyos at Hypaepa was very likely no more necessarily of
1 Cf. Journ. Hell. Stud. xlix. p. 114 on the mixture of Greek and Persian
eschatology in the inscription on the funerary monument of Antiochus I. of
Commagene. The style shows the same mixture: its superficial character is
that of contemporary rhetoric, but its spirit and innere Form find their best
analogy in Persian inscriptions and in the Sassanid inscriptions of Paikuli.
For the blending of ideas cf. also Gnomon, vi. pp. 30 ff., and the prophecy
current under the name of Hystaspes (Ganschinietz, Pauly-Wissowa, ix. 541 f. ;
an exhaustive treatment by H. Windisch, ‘ Die Orakel des Hystaspes,’ in Verh.
d. kon. Akademie-Amsterdam, Afd. Letterk. N.F. xxviii. p. 3, 1929).
2 y. 27.5. We read of an dpxiuayos at Hypaepa in an inscription assigned
to the third or fourth century a.p. (Kaibel, Zpigrammata Graeca, 537, No. 903 a).
3 Comptes rendus de l’ Académie des Inscriptions, 1908, pp. 434 ff. Ed.
Meyer, Ursprung und Anfdnge des Christentums, ii. p. 88, assigns it to the third
century B.C.
4 So Cumont translates, Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain‘,
p. 274, note 23.
5 So Grégoire. 6 Ursprung, ii. p. 73.
VOL. V N
178 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
Persian blood than Christian lewitae were of Jewish blood. There is
another aspect of this Dispersion to be remembered. Magi left in
isolation and perhaps stripped of former revenues may well have used
their prestige and their reputation as magicians and have become
more or less professional magicians. We certainly meet diviners from
this region; Juvenal vi. 550 mentions Armenius uel Commagenus
haruspex. ;
Magical (ii.) The second new Hellenistic factor is the coming into circulation
literature. jn and after the third century B.c. of various collections of magical
recipes under the names of Ostanes, Zoroaster, and the Magi. We
know them from quotations in the elder Pliny, Pseudo-Dioscorides,
magic papyri, the Geoponica and elsewhere,’ and the elder Pliny
gives us in N.H. xxx. 3 ff. an excellent illustration of the extent to
which they had imposed on the popular imagination. The magic
art, he says, undoubtedly started with Zoroaster in Persia, as all
authorities agree. He quotes Eudoxus and Aristotle for the date
of Zoroaster (here placed 6000 years before Plato’s death) and
proceeds to record*the opinion of Hermippus ‘‘ who wrote most
carefully about that whole art and set forth 2,000,000 lines written
by Zoroaster, giving the titles of his works.” Pliny’s actual authority
may well be Apion, who appears in the indices auctorum but not
in the text *; but the tradition goes back to Hermippus, almost
certainly the Hermippus who was a pupil of Callimachus.
Pliny quotes Zoroaster for a method of determining the time
to sow (xviii. 200), and several times in xxxvii. on the virtues of
certain stones (150, 157, 159), and records his name in his indices
auctorum. Ostanes he does not there record, but quotes in xxviii. 69,
where O. is quoted after the Magi and Hesiod, and in §§ 256 and
261; the Magi he quotes continually in xxvii., xxx. and xxxvil. It
is quite clear that when he quotes Magi he means not ‘ magicians ’
in a vague way, but some definite body of doctrine; this follows
from such passages as xxix. 138 magnam auctoritatem huie animali
(sc. gryllo) perhibet Nigidius, maiorem magi, quoniam retro ambulat
terramque terebret, stridat noctibus, and xxx. 100 sed et alios alligant
1 E.g. Catalogus codicum astrologicorum Graecorum, ii. 192 ff, etc. Cumont,
Textes et monuments, i. p. 33.
2 So F. Miinzer, Beitrdge zur Quellenkritik der Naturgeschichte des Plinius,
p. 130. We have a reference to Apion Ilepi udyou in Suidas, s.v. Idons, 1. ii. 139
Bernhardy (no doubt taken by S. from one of the sources from which he draws
his explanations of proverbs; cf. A. Adler, Suidas, 1. xix.), and in the proem of
Diogenes Laertius. If this hypothesis is correct it is particularly notable that
Egyptian magic is not mentioned by Pliny (a point remarked by Cumont,
Religions orientales*, p. 295 n. 99). This should perhaps be explained from the
fact that the Persian tradition was so thoroughly established. Is it also con-
ceivable that Apion shifted responsibility from Egypt? I do not press this, for
it is not clear to me that Apion would have regarded magic as disreputable.
XIV PAUL AND THE MAGUS 179
magi. It is probable that Pliny cites from some doxographic source,
giving the plural Magi like the of Xtwuxol, of "Emuxovpetot, of
TlAarwvixoi of texts recording placita of philosophers. In xxi,
62 he gives Pseudo-Democritus as an intermediary source,* and it
may be that this was commonly his source.
It is much to be desired that the relations of this sot-disant
Persian material to Persian ideas should be fully investigated.
Eduard Meyer has remarked on a point of contact between Ostanes
and the Avesta, though noting that Persian tradition is changed.*
We may here note the virtues ascribed to puppy’s brains (xxix. 117)
and to dog’s gall (xxx. 82), since the dog was in Iranian theory very
much an animal on the side of good : we may also note the generally
apotropaeic and medicinal character of this material, which agrees
with some of the scanty indications which we have found of Persian
practice.
Hermippus was a writer whose attitude towards history was some-
what credulous,‘ but it may well be that the statement about his
setting forth of two million lines of Zoroaster indicates the existence
of these writings in Greek by his time*®: the number may well be
either a scribal error or an exaggeration. As for the idea of genuine
translation, it is not likely. Apart from the Septuagint there is very
little genuine translation into Greek, but only adaptation. The
Tefnut story is translated freely,* the ‘ Potter’s Oracle’ may be a
translation as it claims to be,’ and I would remark that Ecphantus
1 Note xxviii. 86 “‘innocentiores ex his.” For this mode of quotation cf.
my Sallustius, xxxviii.
2 “ Democritus ... narrat ...magos Parthorumque reges hac herba uti ad
uota suscipienda.” For this work cf. Wellmann, Die ®vo.xd des Bolos Demokritos,
i. (Abh. Preuss. Akad., 1928, vii.). Ostanes was the supposed teacher of Demo-
critus; cf. Diels, Vorsokratiker, ii. p. 130. In the same way Pliny seems to have
received Chaldaean theories of the universe through Epigenes, whom he perhaps
knew from Posidonius (W. Kroll, Hermes, lxv. pp. 1 ff.).
3 Ursprung, ii. p. 93. An interesting indication of knowledge of Persian
terminology is a gloss in Hesychius: Aevas- rovs axdxous (kaxods Bétticher) Aeovs
Mayo.
4 Cf. F. E. Adcock, Camb. Hist. Journ. ii. p. 106, on the part which Her-
mippus seems to have played in falsifying tradition concerning the early Greek
lawgivers. Diels, Doxographi, p. 151, suggests that H. acted in good faith.
5 It does not seem to me quite safe to conclude from Pliny, as has been done,
that these books were in the Alexandrian library, though the stichometric
indication of their total bulk perhaps points to a library. Lzxplanauit is
ambiguous: probably it means ‘ gave a full statement of contents of.’
® Reitzenstein-Crénert-Spiegelberg, Sitzwngsber. Heidelb. Akad. 1923, ii. Cf.
the Greek acrostic poem with a corresponding Demotic poem of Moschion
(Revillout, Revue égyptologique, ii. pp. 274f.). Like our magic papyri and Coptic
Gnostic books it is the product of a bilingual stratum.
7 Journ. Hell. Stud. xlix. p. 114.
Hermippus.
180 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
ap. Porphyry, De abstinentia iv. 10, gives an adaptation of the
Egyptian ‘ negative confession of the dead man’ *: what was then
meant by adaptation is illustrated by P Oxy 1381. 174 f., a propos
of a work on early Egyptian history. Such a claim could be utterly
false, as we see from Corp. Herm. xvi., which pretends to be Egyptian
but is Greek commonplace, or from Philo of Byblos: and it will be
remembered that Plotinus himself detected one late fabrication under
the name of Zoroaster.?. There was a popular demand for such
literature, and in the third century B.c. the temptation to invent
unknown works from the past was intensified by the existence of
the Alexandrian Library and its desire for completeness.®
Provisionally, we may guess that these supposedly Persian works
had a Persian atmosphere and were in part at least based on
Persian ideas and perhaps actual books, but that they were in no
sense like Max Miiller’s Sacred Books of the East. Their scope was
not limited to magic,* but it was by their magical content that they
1 For that cf. G. Roeder, Urkunden zur Religion des alten Agypten, pp. 274.
Similar material in Damascius on cosmogony. Joseph. C. Ap. i. 54 says of
his Ant. Jud. éx rév iepdv ypaypdrwr nPupn even:
2 Vita Plotini, 16.
3 Cf. Galen xv. 105, xvi. 5 Kiihn. To this period Wellmann ascribes the
Neopythagorean ’Id:opu7 of Orpheus (@vorxd des Bolos, i. 4). On the existence
of Pythagoreanism in this century cf. H. Lewy, Sobria ebrietas (Beith. z. Zeit. neut.
Wiss. ix.), p. 67. On its importance for magic cf. Journ. Egypt. Arch. xv. pp.
227f. It should be remarked that the Essenes, who have often been thought to
be influenced by Pythagoreanism, possessed writings of the ancients concerned
with medicinal roots and properties of stones (\@wy ld.érnres, Josephus, B.J.
ii. 136). These may well have been something like the ’Idé:o¢uv7, or even in
some relation thereunto. (Some of the Essenes claimed the gift of prophecy :
BiBros iepats kal deaddpos ayvelas Kal rpopnTrav awopbéypacw éutatdorprBovmevor,
ib. 159.) See the article on the Essenes by Cumont, Comptes rendus de
lV Académie des Inscriptions, 1930, pp. 99 ff.
* Dion of Prusa quotes in Or. 36 a Persian tale relating to fiery destruction
of the universe: his manner of quoting it may suggest that he came upon it
casually and that it was not part of any sort of large collection of Persian
material. Nigidius Figulus ap. Serv. in Hcl. iv. 10 (fr. lxvii. in Swoboda’s edition,
p. 83), having quoted the Orphic doctrine of the four ages of the world presided
over by Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto, adds that some, like the Magi,
say that there will be an age of Apollo (cf. J. Jiithner, Anzeiger der Akad. in
Wien, 1925, pp. 170 f.). On this doctrine M. Cumont kindly allows me to refer
to his forthcoming article in Rev. hist. rel. 1930.
Ostanes certainly dealt with angelology, and perhaps exercised considerable
influence on the development of ideas on this topic; cf. Cumont, Religions
orientales*, pp. 279 f. Plut. De defectu oraculorum 10 refers to the theory of
daimones as coming from the Magi or Orpheus, or some Egyptian or Phrygian.
For the method of securing a happy passage to heaven in Arnobius ii. 62 cf.
Journal Eg. Archaeol. xv. pp. 230 ff.
—
<a
xIV PAUL AND THE MAGUS 181
most impressed popular imagination, which was then more prone
than now to take a book or a statement at its face value, and that
they helped to crystallize the idea of magic as a Persian thing. They
had a long life.’
4, We have now seen the main lines of the development of the
term udyos. In and after the Hellenistic period it has its two meanings,
Persian fire-priest and magician or quack, and these meanings occur
side by side. Thus Philo is fully aware of the character of the Persian
Magi and of their paytx7) and is disposed to ennoble it, writing as he
does at a time when for nearly three centuries it has been a current
idea that various early Greek sages had learnt wisdom from Persian
and Egyptian priests. At the same time, a page earlier he uses
pidyos in the derived sense.? Apuleius also in his Apologia 26 sets the
two senses side by side. The derived sense is much commoner.
Magi appear in Tacitus on a footing with Chaldaei: they are credited
with rites (sacra) and with ways of evoking the dead.* They are
in fact professionals to whom the private person may turn in time
of need. It has been shown earlier that the term now implies no
nationality in particular; it is freely used in Egyptian magical
texts, and Pliny can say peragratis Persidis Arabiae Aethiopiae
Aegypti magis,* and Herodian tovs te mavraxydbev payous.® At the
same time the name has a flavour of Eastern wisdom, as in Matth.
ii. 1,6 and a magus might employ Persian dress and apparatus to
1 In addition to material noted earlier cf. the Life of Severus, Patriarch of
Antioch from 512 to 518, by Zacharias the Scholastic. He mentions a collection
of magical books, some ascribed to Zoroaster, some to Ostanes, some to Manetho
(Patrologia Orientalis, 11. i. 62, ed. Kugener; «bid. 70 f. we read of mountebanks
who claimed to know from Magian and Persian books where Darius had hidden
treasures ; tbid. 38 there is a reference to papers (xéprns) with invocations of
pagan gods doubtless like the Néyo. of our magical papyri).
2 Quod omnis probus liber, § 74; De specialibus legibus, iii. 100; ib. 93, in
the ordinary sense. What he says, § 101, on the rapdxouma Tavrns, 8C. THs MAyLKAS,
does not refer to Persia. So again Numenius ap. Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 7
(a reference which I owe to Mr. B.S. Page) speaks of Bpaypéves cal "Iovdato
kal Mayo cal Alyirrio, but in another fragment (ib. ix. 8) uses wayeioar of
Iannes and Iambres.
3 Cf. Ann. xvi. 31, where Servilia, defending herself on the charge of having
had recourse to such sacra for divinatory purposes, says “‘nullos impios deos,
nullas deuotiones nec aliud infelicibus precibus inuocaui quam ut hunc optimum
patrem tu, Caesar, uos patres seruaretis incolumem”’; Tibullus i. 2. 61 f. “‘nocte
serena concidit ad magicos hostia pulla deos’”’; Virg. Hcl. 8. 68 “‘magicis ...
sacris” ; Serv. ad Aen. iv. 493 ‘cum multa sacra Romani susciperent, semper
magica damnarunt.”
4 N.H. xxv. 13. iv. 12.3.
§ Cf. Klostermann’s note. They come a7 dvaro\Gr, which is vague, and they
are mentioned with respect. Matthew and Luke differ in their use of pdyos.
Summary.
182 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
give atmosphere.* In so far as he uses anything really taken from
Persia, he uses it just as non-Christians used the name of Jesus in
magic, or as one might imagine individual quacks in a non-Catholic
country using adaptations of liturgical exorcisms, divorced from their
background and combined with other elements seeking the aegis
of the borrowed name. Such an analogy seems to me helpful for
the understanding of the Mithraslhiturgie.
ayes, 5. The writer of Acts describes Elymas as pdéyov ypevdo-
mpodytynv. This is almost intentionally vague, and it is not quite
safe to infer that Elymas was a professional vending spells or
performing for profit rites intended to do harm or to influence the
affections of others. pdyos in such a context may merely be used
like yéns, humbug, of a practitioner of another and hostile religion.
It is probable that in such a context you mean by pdyos a man
who might perfectly well be doing mumbo-jumbo even if you have
not actually found him in the act.
It is not surprising to find a Jew in this context. Jewish exorcists
appear in Acts xix. 13, where 7av mreptepyouevwr *lovdaiwy e€op-
KioT@v is very contemptuous for a body including seven sons of a
high priest, and classes them with the begging priests of the dea
Syra or cheapjacks of any kind. Their spells, or spells which pur-
ported to be theirs, enjoyed widespread authority, largely due no
doubt to the mysterious nature of the Jewish race and its firm claim
of intimate relationship to a powerful deity whose name was sur-
rounded with a secrecy which accentuated its value, a deity moreover
who was believed to have interfered and to be prepared to interfere
cataclysmically with the course of history. The temptation to Jews
to embrace this career may be inferred from various prohibiters : Rab
of Babylon, who died in A.D. 297, said, ‘‘ He who learns a single word
from a Magian is worthy of death, ”2 and the (possibly Jewish) list
of prohibitions in Didache ii. 2 includes ot payevoets od hovevoets.
Burkitt has drawn attention to an interesting Syriac homily On
1 Cf. Lucian, Menippus 6f., which is of course localized at Babylon:
so one of our supposed magical Magi in partibus may lie behind the picture,
which may go back to Lucian’s model Menippus. We may remark that M. is
ordered to carry a lyre (8), and with it calms Cerberus. Cf. the new fragment
of Varro, possibly from his Menippean satire “Ovos \vpas, discussed Cl. Rev., 1927,
pp. 169 ff., and 1929, pp. 60 f.
2 Cited by Strack-Billerbeck, i. 76, on Matt. ii. 1. Cf. S. Krauss, Jewish
Encyclopaedia, ii. p.406a, for Jewish contempt of the Magi. In general cf. L. Blau,
Altjiidisches Zauberwesen, and Jewish Encyclopaedia, viii. p. 255; Schiirer, Gesch.
jud. Volkes*, iii. pp. 407 ff.; C. C. McCown, The Testament of Solomon. Jewish
magic is part of the whole interesting phenomenon of heretical Judaism in
antiquity, on which cf. my Early Gentile Christianity, pp. 54 f.; H. Gressmann,
Die orientalischen Religionen im hellenistisch-rémischen Zeitalter, pp. 116 ff., 168.
zr PAUL AND THE MAGUS 183
Magicians, Enchanters and Diviners, in which the writer complains
that his fellow-Christians, even the clergy, resorted to magicians and
Jews. The text is ascribed in mss. to St. Ephraim, but assigned
by Burkitt to Isaac of Antioch, who flourished in the first half of
the fifth century of our era.* So later the legend of Theophilus,
supposed, according to the version which Radermacher regards as
the oldest, to have lived in the time of Heraclius, mentions a Jewish
‘servant of the devil’ at Adana in Cilicia: it is to him that the
Christian when tempted has recourse.”
Elymas is not an ordinary professional vending curses and
philtres, or if he is, he has other qualities commending him to Sergius
Paulus. He is a man of religious potentiality who has some sort of
vague position in the household of a great Roman. His status is not
unlike that of the domestic philosophers whom men of rank kept, or
of private chaplains later. Juvenal vi. gives a striking picture of a
Jewess * who has secured a Roman lady’s confidence. That Elymas
should stand in the position ascribed to him may to us appear
strange: but in view of the religious curiosity which marked the
period we need not regard the association as impossible : the intimate
relation in which the astrologer Thrasyllus stood to Tiberius after
his successful prophecy may serve as a further analogy.* Moreover,
1 Proc. Soc. Bibl. Archaeol. xxiii. (1901), pp. 77 f.; T. J. Lamy’s St.
Ephraem, ii. p. 400; A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, p. 65,
accepts the identification as fairly near certain. ;
2 rod diaBddou broupyds, L. Radermacher, Griechische Quellen zur Faustsage
(Sitzungsber. Akad. Wien, 206, iv., 1927), p. 164. 23.
3 Possibly a syncretistic Jewess, as Reitzenstein infers from 544 (Die hellenis-
tischen Mysterienreligionem’, pp. 145 ff.) ; but Juvenal speaks loosely. On the ex-
pulsion of Jews for proselytism from Rome in 139 B.o. cf. Reitzenstein, pp. 104 f.
4 Cf. the Symposiac Questions of Plutarch with their discussions of such
topics as Jewish religion, the question of Tiberius on the death of the great Pan
(and Cl. Rev., 1923, pp. 164 f.), the interest of Felix in Paul’s preaching, Acts
xxiv. 24 ff., and Apion’s work on the symbolism of Egyptian hieroglyphics. We
may further note Nero’s sudden devotion to the statuette of an unknown deity
(Suet. Nero, 56) and his initiation by Tiridates (Plin. N.H. xxx. 17 “‘magos secum
adduxerat, magicis etiam cenis eum initiauerat’’), or again Statius, Silvae,
m1. ii. 101 ff. (in giving to a friend good wishes for his departure to Egypt
Statius remarks on the opportunities which he will have for learning the secrets _
of the country, not merely the old question of the Nile’s sources but also, 110,
“cur inuida Memphis, curue Therapnaei lasciuiat ora Canopi, cur seruet Pharias
Lethaeus ianitor aras, uilia cur magnos aequent animalia diuos; quae sibi prae-
sternat uiuax altaria phoenix.”’ A propos of magnos, conventional as it is, we may
observe that wéyas and wéyoros are as divine epithets particularly common in
Graeco-Roman Egypt). Plin. Hp. v. 8. 4, explaining the appeal which history
makes, says “sunt enim homines natura curiosi et quamlibet nuda rerum
cognitione capiuntur, ut qui sermunculis etiam fabellispue ducantur.” Cf.
The general
character of
the story.
184 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
Sir William Ramsay has rightly reminded us of the train of comites
who formed the suite of a governor’; we may remember the pictures
which Juvenal and Lucian give us of the Greeks attendant on a great
man, or again earlier the way in which Fulvius Nobilior took Ennius
with him on the Aetolian war to celebrate his achievements in verse.
A Roman governor might of course have other use for a magus.
Josephus tells how Felix used Atomos, a Jew of Cyprian birth who
pretended to be a Magus, to persuade Drusilla to leave her husband.?
It has been suggested that Atomos and Etoimas (a strong variant
here) are one and the same man: this is possible, but no more.°
6. The story as a whole is of the type so common later of a
demonstration by results of the superior merits of Christianity.
The appeal to works as a proof of Messiahship and the gift and
promise of supernatural powers to the disciples are made emphatically
in the Gospels.* In the surrounding Hellenistic world the notion of a
dispassionate supernatural being was confined to certain philosophers,
and any enthusiastic devotee expected wonders from the object of
his devotion, particularly in any conflict, and appealed to those
wonders as reasons why the indifferent public around him should
side with him. The Bacchae of Euripides illustrates this attitude.
A striking instance is afforded by a Delian inscription of about
200 B.c. recording how Apollonius, who like his father and grand-
father before him was priest of Sarapis, had a vision saying that a
Sarapeum must be built and the god must not live in hired places
as before, and promising to find and to indicate the spot. The temple
was built, and then legal proceedings were taken against the new
religion. Sarapis said to Apollonius in a dream, We shall be victorious,
and they were. A poem by Maiistas follows, celebrating the event.
again the knowledge which Epictetus shows of Judaic use (i. 11. 12, 22. 4;
ii. 9. 14).
This curiosity is a factor of some importance in the spread of Christianity
in the Gentile world. Christian propaganda in it must have depended largely
on one individual bringing in another. It must have been so also with Mithraism,
which, unlike the cults of Cybele and of the Egyptian deities, had no public
ceremonies striking the imagination at once.
To this periphery of interested persons and to Christian people eager to
know the earlier history of the movement Luke and Acts were perhaps addressed.
It is not likely that they were gettable through the booksellers of the time.
1 St. Paul the Traveller, p.77. Cf. Friedlander, Sittengeschichte Roms’, i.
p. 73, iv. pp. 56 ff., on the Emperor’s entourage.
2 Ant. Iud. xx. 142.
3 Literature in A. Wikenhauser’s Die Apostelgeschichte und thr Geschichtswert
(Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, viii. 3-5), p. 397. Wefind in Egypt domestic
magicians, A. H. Gardiner, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. xxxix. p. 32.
4 Mt. xi. 4-6; Lk. vii. 21-22; John x. 41, xiv. 11; Lk. x. 17 ff.
xIVv PAUL AND THE MAGUS — 185
The miracle was that the accusers were struck dumb. “ And all
the people in that hour marvelled at thy power, and thou didst bring
great glory to thy servant in god-stablished Delos.’ * So again in
the Alexandrine story of the dispute between the Jews and the
Alexandrians before Trajan, the image of Sarapis sweated at the
critical moment and there was much popular emotion in consequence.
There were tumults in Rome, and many shouts were raised and many
fled to the hills.’
The result of a miracle is wiotts, that is to say, those present or
some of them take up an attitude of submissive reliance in the new
dvvayts and its representatives.? Here the miracle takes the form
of a judgement of God, like that which fell on Ananias and Sapphira,
or that in the Delian story. The storyis, as E. Peterson has remarked,‘
one of heiliges Recht ; it includes the motif of the successful curse
(like that of Theseus in the Hippolytus of Euripides). A Gottesurtedl
(with a competitive nuance) occurs in the story of Korah, Dathan
and Abiram in Numbers xvi., and of Elijah and the prophets of Baal
in 1 Kings xviii. There may be in it some suggestion of the out-
doing of the magician at his own game: blinding is one of the things
1 OQ. Weinreich, Newe Urkunden zur Sarapis-Religion, pp. 31 ff.
2 P Oxy 1242; cf. W. Weber, Hermes, pp. 50,70. On the typology of these
stories cf. E. Peterson, EIZ OEOZ. In Christian legend they are extremely
common, e.g. E. A. W. Budge, The Contendings of the Apostles, ii. p. 367.
3 The Heroicus of Philostratus illustrates well the concept of wicris in the
early third century 4.p. A Phoenician visits a vine-tender who believes himself
to have a special relation to the hero Protesilaus, who visits him and looks after
him. The Phoenician is inclined to disbelieve things mythical, having met
no eye-witnesses of their reality (pnul yap drlorws diaxeioOar mpds Ta v0W5n), but
is sympathetic, having said earlier cal yap av xaplfo.o Tots Hpwow, ei micTevwv
dmé\Oouu. The vine-tender’s narratives convince him, and he says pera cod
Aourdv, dumedoupye, TaTTW euauToy Kal ovdels rt Tots ToLovTas dmioryoce. (CE.
Eitrem, Symbolae Osloenses, viii.) It is like the effect of an Apostolic sermon.
For the psychology of religious conviction at the time we may compare Plin.
Ep. vii. 27; P. asks whether phantasmata have objective existence and says
that he is inclined to believe in them (1) from what he hears happened to
Curtius Rufus, (2) from the story of Athenodorus, (3) from his freedman’s dream.
So Athanasius in his Vita 8. Antonii, 77 (xxvi. 952 Migne) represents pagan
philosophers as admitting to the Saint the superiority of 7 6.’ évepyeias miotis
over 7) did Adywv dwrdderécs.
4 Die Kirche, p. 19. <A similar Gottesurteil prophesied for the high-priest
Ananias in Acts xxiii. 2 and invoked in 1 Cor. v. 5 and later formulas of ex-
communication, in forms of ordeal, in Roman republican treaty-making by
fetiales. It is described in an Epidaurian inscription, ’Apxaodoyixh "Eqnuepls,
1918, p. 168, and in the so-called Lydian confession inscriptions ; it is threatened
by Apollo’s prophet to a menacing unbeliever in the papyrus dialogue published
by W. Schubart, Hermes, lv. pp. 188 ff. On the successful curse cf. G. L.
Hendrickson, A.J.P. xlvi. pp. 101 ff.
186 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
which his type claimed to be able to do,* and a demonstration of
power before a personage in authority is also characteristic.2 But the
form of the tale is not the common one of competitive thaumaturgy,
and it does not end with the conversion and cure of the opponent
as is frequent in such tales.* It is just possible, but this is a most
1 F. LI. Griffith and H. Thompson, Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and
Leiden, col. xxiv. 31.
2 So Pachrates before Hadrian (Preisendanz, Pap. Graec. Mag. iv. 2445 ff.),
Eleazar before Vespasian, his sons and officers (Josephus, Ant. Iud. vii. 46), and
in a Syrian story Zoroaster before the king (R. Gottheil, Hssays Drisler, pp. 40f.).
3 Of this we have Jewish instances (e.g. the contest between Moses and the
Egyptian magician, the rivalry of Daniel and the Chaldaeans in dream inter-
pretation), and a striking Egyptian instance in F. LI. Griffith, Stories of the High
Priests of Memphis, pp. 173 ff. (the magicians of Ethiopia and of Egypt each in
turn cause the king of the one country to be taken to the other and beaten).
Parallel motifs are common, e.g. the Eastern idea of war as fought out partly
between the gods of the two countries, the war of Ninus and Zoroaster fought
out by magic (Arnobius i. 5), the divination of different Scythian diviners in
Herodotus.
Christian instances are plentiful, as for instance the legend of St. Peter and
Simon Magus and tales discussed by me Journ. Theol. Stud. xxviii. pp. 414 f.;
Budge, Monks of Kubla Khan, pp. 16f. In his Contendings, ii. pp. 495 ff., we
have rival miracles of St. Peter and St. John on the one hand and St. Paul on the
other. Ibid. p.580 we have rival healings by Artemis and St. Paul; pp. 654f.a
spontaneous Gottesurteil, the priests who had not believed become blind, but in
accordance with the common motif recover their sight, thanks to the Apostles.
An interesting specimen of this type of tale occurs in the Historia A postolica
ascribed to Abdias, vi. 7 ff. (Fabricius, Codex pseudepigraphus Nout Testamenti?,
1. ii. 608 ff.). Christian missionaries, Simon and Jude, go to Persia to undo
the work of two Magi, Zaroes and Arfaxat, heresiarchs who had fled from St.
Matthew in Ethiopia. Their tenets as stated in 7 are clearly Manichee; at the
same time they are credited with power to make men immobile or blind and to
control snakes (vii. 1). In the king’s army there are “ sacrificatores et arioli et
magi et incantatores qui per singulas mansiones sacrificantes daemoniis dabant
responsa fallaciae suae.”” On the day on which the Apostles come they could
give no oracle, but the daemon of a neighbouring city’s shrine tells them cum
ingentt mugitu that the silence is due to Simon and Jude, ‘‘ qui tantam consecuti
a Deo sunt uirtutem ut nullus nostrorum audeat illis praesentibus loqui.”” Then
as a demonstration of power the Apostles allow the gods to speak again. The
motif is probably borrowed from the story of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus:
Greg. Nyss. Vita G. T’. in Migne P.G. xlvi. 913 p, cf. Journ. Hell. Stud. xlv. p. 95.
The silencing of oracles is known elsewhere, e.g. Passio 8. Saturnini, 3, in
Ruinart, Acta Martyrum?, 109 f., but this is more individual, and uncertain as
is the date of Abdias it is probably later than the story of Gregory. (For making a
pagan image speak cf. Budge, Contendings, ii. pp. 379 ff.) Itis improved on, since
the prophecy which follows is wrong, and the Christians follow by foretelling
what actually happens; the Magi are saved from death only by the entreaty
of the Christians. There follows a further trial of strength. The Magi (here
apparently Zaroes and Arfaxat in particular, ch, 13) cause the eloquent men
es
XIV PAUL AND THE MAGUS 187
tentative guess, to which I attach little weight, that the localization
of the story in Cyprus derives additional point from the island’s
reputation for magic. Pliny xxx. 11, having spoken of Persian magic
as the oldest, passes to Jewish as “ many thousands of years sub-
sequent to Zoroaster”? and adds tanto recentior est Cypria.’ If it
really was a recent development, this may add point to the story.
7. The story as it stands is one of the vivid scenes which the Conclusion.
writer of the third Gospel and of Acts incorporates in his tale. It
comes before us bald and unadorned, without any attempt to explain
how Paul and Barnabas came before Sergius (as for instance by
some allusion to the Cyprian connexions of Barnabas, or by the
suggestion that the governor hearing of the new preaching wished
to know of it, either in the interests of public order or from that
religious curiosity which we have considered).*? The proconsul’s
conversion, which would have been an event of the first importance,
is just stated as though it were that of a washerwoman. And it
has no consequences: “‘ No Church is said to have been founded
at Paphos (contrast the names in xvii. 34); the change of Saul’s
name here to Paul remains very odd, notwithstanding all the
explanations given by commentators, and the names of the Magus
are more than odd.” * The conclusion to which one is driven is that
of the kingdom first to be silent, then to speak but be unable to move, then to
be unable to see though their eyes are open. Later when they try to repeat
this the Apostles prevent them. Next they bring serpents, which the Apostles
cause to bite them, after which they prevent the bites from being mortal and
cause them to heal after three days of suffering.
The story is clearly late and confused, passing from Manichee missionaries
to Persian priests, vi. 10. They have authority like that of the Magi at the
Sassanid court ; but it would be unsafe to suppose that it rests on genuine know-
ledge of conditions in Persia. In the Passio 8S. Symphorosae Hadrian has his
magi et ariolt : the source of both stories is no doubt Daniel. Abdias shows no
such local material as we find in the Actes des martyrs persans, edited by Delehaye
in Patrologia Orientalis, ii. 4, or in the Syrian Acts of the Persian Martyrs.
1 It may be remarked that Cyprus was well fitted to play this part.
Egyptian, Phoenician and Greek influences had long blended in it.
2 W. M. Ramsay, Paul the Traveller, p. 80, justly remarks that the Western
addition in vs. 8, “For Sergius heard Barnabas and Saul very gladly,” is
explanatory : it sophisticates the narrative.
8 I quote a letter from Professor Burkitt. I need hardly say that the
incoherence of this piece of tradition confirms the suggestion made by Schwartz,
Nachr. Gétting. Gesell., 1907, pp. 271 f. (cf. Beginnings Vol. II. pp. 125 f. and
Addit. Notes 16, 18, and 34), of a doublet in the story of Paul and Barnabas.
It is possible, as Professor Lake suggests to me, that Elymas was, like Simon
Magus, a person of far greater importance than the narrative suggests: we are
in the dark,
The Pauline
allusions. |
188 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
Luke has some definite tradition which he has incorporated tant
bien que mal. So lame a story would not readily have been invented
in Luke’s time. It is a Gottesurteil with the proconsul as background.
In a later stage of development we should have heard of the con-
version and cure of Elymas, and of the subsequent fortunes and
martyrdom of Sergius: that became common form.
Naive as the tale seems to us, it served three purposes. First,
it represented the Roman authorities as very sympathetic at the
outset of Paul’s active ministry in the Gentile world; secondly,
it gave to Paul a Gottesurteil comparable with that declared by
Peter on Ananias and Sapphira; thirdly, and this was perhaps
important, it represented Christianity in very sharp contrast with
magia. 'The claim of Christians to work miracles, coupled with the
novelty of the movement, caused them to be classed with magi.’
Now Acts very definitely associates magia with a Jewish religious
adventurer here, with others of the type in ch. xix., and with a
time-serving temporary Christian convert in ch. viii.: and even he
is represented as awed by the authority of the Apostles (vs. 24).
The story, then, was useful; and probably neither Luke nor his
audience felt the difficulties which strike us.
Note XV. Tar Conversion or Paub AND THE EVENTS
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IT
By Kirsopp LAKE
The story of Paul’s conversion and the events immediately following
is told in Acts ix. 1 ff., in xxii. 6 ff., in xxvi. 12 ff., is referred to in Gal.
i. 13 ff, and probably in 2 Cor. xi. 32.
Neither of the references in the Pauline epistles is a complete
narrative. They do not give any account of the actual vision. But
it is disconcerting to note to what an extent they mention episodes
immediately following it which are partly ignored in Acts and partly
inconsistent with its direct statements. It is therefore desirable to
divide the whole subject into two sections: (i.) The account of the
1 Cf. p. 182 earlier; Celsus ap. Origen, Contra Celsum, i. 38; O. Braun,
Ausgewthlte Akten persischer Martyrer, pp. 64, 116; the Apostles regarded as
sorcerers by unbelievers in Budge, Contendings, ii. pp. 106, 125, 143, 226, 362,
422, 631; so Christ, ibid. p. 381 (as by Celsus ap. Orig. C.C. i. 68, cf. Klostermann
on Mk. i. 23). We may note as remarkable, Braun, p. 203, of the Eucharist, “the
flesh over which the magical prayers are recited,” a phrase put in the mouth
of the Magi. A. Fridrichsen, Theology, xxii. (March 1931) pp. 122 ff., argues
forcibly that the words uttered by expelled demons in the Gospels are intended
to differentiate Jesus from common magicians.
xv THE CONVERSION OF PAUL > 189
‘Vision’ described three times in Acts. (ii.) Paul’s experiences and
conduct immediately after the vision, partially related both in Acts
and in the Epistles.
(i.) The Vision.—The three accounts of the vision in Acts are almost The Vision.
identical; they clearly represent a single tradition, and probably a
single source. The phraseology in all three is generally similar, but
manifests Luke’s tendency slightly to vary his phrases when repeating
the same story. Moreover this variation is much less marked in the
important passages, which are generally repeated almost verbatim.
The vision which changed Paul’s life is described in each of the Variations
three passages in Acts, with only very slight verbal differences. They as
all say that he was on the road to Damascus, that a bright light shone
about him, and that a voice said, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me ?”
Saul said, “Who art thou, Lord?” and was told, “I am Jesus, whom
thou persecutest.” There are, however, some differences in the account
of the minor circumstances. (a) In ix. 7 Paul’s companions heard the
voice, but saw nothing; but in xxii. 9 they saw the light, but heard
nothing. (b) In ix. 4 and xxii. 7 Paul fell to the ground, but his com-
panions remained standing; but in xxvi. 14 they all fell to the ground.
(c) In ix. 6 and xxii. 10 Jesus tells Paul to go to Damascus, where
he will be told what to do; but in xxvi. 16 f. the actual commission of
apostleship—ey® drootéhkAw oe—is given to Paul at the time of the
vision.
Of these differences the first two are unimportant, and are such as
are always found in any narrative which is repeated. Any lawyer
knows that complete agreement between witnesses, or the exact repetition
of the same story, is a sign of fabrication or of very careful preparation.
The third is in a different category, and becomes very important when
taken in connexion with the continuation of the narrative in ix. 9 ff.
and xxii. 12 ff., and with the narrative in Gal. i. 13 ff., which present
serious difficulty.
According to Acts ix. Paul went at once to Damascus, where Ananias, Ananias of
definitely described as a Christian, was commissioned by Jesus to heal ?@™"s°"*
Paul’s blindness and to communicate to him the gift of the Spirit,
which would fit him to be a witness to Jesus. Thus the first apostolic
commission of Paul was given through Ananias. The same story is told
in xxii. 12-16, but with minor differences. These make it appear that
in xxii, 15 Ananias was announcing Paul’s call to apostleship rather
than conferring anything, that baptism is regarded as cleansing from sin
rather than as conferring the Spirit, and that the divine commission to
preach to the Gentiles was given later to Paul himself in Jerusalem.
But of this whole episode there is no trace at all in xxvi. The
commission is given to Paul at the time of the vision, there is no story
of his blindness or of Ananias, and Paul goes at once to Damascus and
begins to preach.
It might be thought that this difference is merely due to a natural Paul's
compression of the narrative, but when Galatians is taken into account @uistions.
the matter becomes more serious. Paul’s own words are that he is an
Possible
sources for
story.
190 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
apostle—not from men—da’ dvOpeérwv—nor through a man—é’
_ dvOpérov (Gal. i. 1)—and “I assure you,” he says, “ brethren, that the
gospel which is preached by me is not according to man, for I did not
receive it from a man (rapa dvO@pérov), nor was I taught it, but through
revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. i. 11-12), and “when it pleased God
(who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me through his
grace) to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the
Gentiles, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood, nor did I
go up to Jerusalem, but I went away to Arabia” (Gal. i, 15-17).
By no possibility can these statements be reconciled with the story
that Paul did not receive his commission directly from Jesus, who
merely told him to go to Damascus to receive further instructions, which
were communicated to him through a man—Ananias. If Paul had
wished to contradict the story in Acts, could he have selected a better
phrase than that which he employs when he says that he is an apostle
‘neither from men nor through a man’? Or, on the other hand, could
there have been a more deadly refutation of Paul’s claim that he did
not ‘confer with flesh and blood’ than the quiet recitation of the fact
that his baptism and instruction to be a ‘witness’ came | through
Ananias ?
It must be obvious that Paul would not so warmly have protested
that his commission came directly from Jesus if there had been no
stories of a different nature. As has been pointed out several times in
Beginnings of Christianity, notably by Prof. Burkitt in Vol. II. pp. 106 ff.,
the difficulty of ‘source-criticism’ in Acts is that the parallel example |
of the third gospel proves that Luke used sources, but also proves that
he used them so skilfully that their reconstruction in any detail is
hazardous, if not impossible. Undoubtedly this applies to the present
problem. Certainly Luke may have been acquainted with at least
two, and possibly three sources, each of which possibly contained the
story of how Paul came to be a Christian. One of these sources was
Paul himself; for whether the writer of Acts was or was not a companion
of Paul, it cannot be doubted that he had access to the Pauline tradition.
The second source was the tradition of Jerusalem, which the earlier
chapters of Acts abundantly prove to have been well known to Luke.
The third possible source is the tradition of Antioch. This is certain :
but can we tell which, or how many of the three sources, Luke was
actually following and how far he edited it ?
No hypothesis is more than a guess, yet any has just as much
probability as that which merely accepts the divergence of the narratives
and argues that it is unimportant. It is at least not impossible that
the story of Ananias was current in Jerusalem, and was used to justify
the contention that Paul was, in spite of his protest, an apostle ‘from
men and through a man. Unless human nature has markedly
deteriorated, it is probable that the story was told in many forms, none
quite correct ; but that the contention was made that Paul’s apostleship
was secondary is clear from the warmth with which Paul denied it, and
the story of Ananias, told with continual variation, has exactly the form
ae
xv THE CONVERSION OF PAUL 191
which such a story would probably receive. The account in Acts xxvi.,
which approaches so much nearer to the narrative in Galatians, may
be harmonized to the Pauline version. A further possibility, which
from lack of evidence cannot be proved or refuted, is that Acts ix. and
Acts xxii. are a combination of the Pauline and Jerusalem versions, due
to the Church at Antioch rather than to Luke, nor was Luke necessarily
wrong in preferring it. It is quite unnecessary to suppose that the
story of Ananias is fiction: it is very probable that there was someone
of that name who befriended Paul, shaken and half blind, when he
staggered into Damascus, and that Jewish Christians believed that he
had contributed far more to Paul’s understanding than Paul himself
thought that he had done.
Can we say any more about Ananias? Not with certainty. He Actual rdle
may have been a refugee from Jerusalem, or an original disciple of *4™™*
Jesus living in Damascus (see note on ix. 10); but special importance
attaches to the points raised in the notes to ix. 10 and 17. Preuschen’s
view is that chapter xxii. shows that there was originally a tradition
according to which Ananias merely restored Paul’s sight, and that he
was a pious Jew, not a Christian. This is possible, but unprovable and
perhaps improbable, Certainly, however, chapters ix. and xxii. depict
Ananias differently. In chapter ix. he speaks in the accents of an
Hellenistic Christian of the Lucan type. He issent by ‘the Lord, Jesus’ ;
and Paul is offered baptism in such a way that it is equated with the
gift of the Spirit. In chapter xxii. he speaks as a Jewish Christian of
the most primitive type. He is sent by ‘the God of our fathers,’ and
Jesus is not described as the Lord or even as the Messiah, but as the
‘righteous one.’ Baptism is merely the washing away of sin, and the
Spirit is not mentioned. If these are two variants of the same tradition,
one of them has been very much edited, and surely it is much more
likely that chapter xxii. represents the source, and that chapter ix. is
Luke’s Hellenizing revision. Certainty is unattainable, but to my own
mind the most probable guess is that Ananias was an original Christian
of the most primitive Jewish type, to whom Jesus was ‘the Righteous
one.” He befriended and perhaps healed Paul, and in spite of Paul’s
protests was claimed in Jerusalem as his converter. I think xxii. is
nearer the source than is ix., which has been Hellenized by Luke. But,
on the other hand, xxii. may be somewhat shorter than the original.
Why did Luke omit the story of Ananias in chapter xxvi.? I think
that the most probable solution is that though Luke was using funda-
mentally the same source as he did in the earlier chapters, he omitted
this episode either because he knew that Paul himself refused to accept
it or from a correct and artistic sense that it was unnecessary in a
speech before Herod-Agrippa. This seems more likely than any more
complicated theory of a combination of sources.
Thus the general result of a consideration of this part of the story
is to suggest that the narrative of Paul’s conversion as given in Acts is
probably a form of the story current in Jerusalem, rather than a perfect
representation of the way in which Paul would have told the story.
Paul’s move-
ments after
his con-
version.
Arabia.
Paul's
purpose.
The account
in Acts.
192 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
(ii.) The Events immediately following the Conversion,—There are
much greater difficulties in the narrative of Paul’s procedure immediately
after the conversion. Galatians says that he went away to Arabia and then
returned to Damascus. Only after three years did he go to Jerusalem.
Acts, on the other hand, says that he spent a few days in Damascus and
then went straight to Jerusalem.
The Arabia to which Paul refers is doubtless the kingdom of the
Nabatean Arabs, at that time both powerful and prosperous. The
daughter of its king Aretas had been the wife of Herod Antipas, who
discarded her in favour of Herodias, and Aretas—after an interval of
some years—had attacked Herod with such success that the Romans
had been obliged to intervene.t At one time the Nabatean power had
extended from Damascus to beyond the Gulf of Akaba, and the Sinai
peninsula is full of inscriptions and graffiti in the peculiar Nabatean
script. After the time of Pompey Damascus was lost, but the greater
part of the country east of Peraea remained in Nabatean power.
The exact limits of Nabatean Arabia in the first century cannot be
defined with certainty, but Aretas probably controlled all the eastern
part of Transjordania. The great cities of the Decapolis, such as
Philadelphia and Gerasa, were of course not included, and Machaerus,
east of the Dead Sea, was, according to Josephus,? the frontier fortress
of Herod Antipas. But south and east of these cities Aretas was the
dominant power.
Why did Paul go to Nabatean Arabia? He is not explicit in
Galatians ; but the general tenor of his words implies that he went
in fulfilment of the commission which he had received to preach to the
Gentiles. ‘‘ When it pleased him to reveal his Son in me that I might
preach him among the Gentiles, immediately . . . I went to Arabia.”
Why? The'obvious answer is, to obey the command and preach. The
meaning is really quite plain, and has only been made obscure by the
tendency of commentators to think that Arabia means Mt. Sinai and
that Paul went there for rest and contemplation, because in Paul’s
exegesis of the story of Hagar in Gal. iv. 25 it is said that Mt. Sinai is
in Arabia, and there is a tendency to suppose that Paul never preached
except where Acts says that he did. But the Epistles show how much
Paul did which Acts does not record, and Mt, Sinai* was no more the
dominant part of Arabia in the first century than it is to-day.
Acts has a very different account. It says that Paul stayed in
Damascus after his conversion, and preached in the synagogues that
Jesus was the Son of God until the Jews threatened to kill him, when
he went secretly to Jerusalem.‘
It is impossible to see any way of reconciling these two presentments
of Paul’s movements. No one could ever suppose that the period of
1 See Vol. I. pp. 16 ff.
2 Antig. xviii. 5. 1, and see the footnote on p. 18 of Vol. I.
3 It is of course by no means certain that the Biblical Sinai is the modern Sinai.
* Acts ix. 20 ff.
xv THE CONVERSION OF PAUL 193
preaching in Damascus described in Acts ix. was extended over three
years, No one could suppose that into this period there must be
intercalated a visit to Arabia. Indeed, the natural interpretation of
Gal. i. is even further from Acts. If we had only the epistle, is it not
certain that we should assume that the conversion took place in
Damascus, that Paul then immediately went, not to but away from
Damascus, and only returned (iréorpefa, a word which surely implies
that he was in Damascus when he was converted) to Damascus after
a visit to Arabia? The general tenor of the passage certainly excludes
the view that the immediate result of the conversion was a short but
successful mission in Damascus, whence he went to Jerusalem.
It is hard to resist the conclusion that Luke has omitted essential
details, thus bringing together events which were really separate, and
making it appear that Paul’s preaching in Damascus followed immedi-
ately after his conversion instead of many months later.
The next episode in the story is Paul’s escape from Damascus in a Paul's
basket let down over the wall when he was endangered by a Jewish Scape from
plot. The parallel account of this plot and Paul’s escape is given in
2 Cor. xi. 32 f. The ‘basket’ incident, which is the spectacular part
of each story, suggests that both refer to the same incident, but there
is much difficulty in the details. 2 Cor. xi. 32 f. says: “In Damascus,
the ethnarch of Aretas the king watched (éfpovper) the city of the
Damascenes in order to capture me, and I was let down in a basket
through a window in the wall, and I escaped from his hands.” On the
basis of this passage it has often been suggested that at this time
Damascus, which had belonged to the Nabateans before the time of
Pompey, had again been given by Rome to Aretas. There is, however,
no evidence in support of this view except the fact—which may at any
moment cease to be one—that no Roman coins of the reigns of Caius
and Claudius have been found in Damascus. They are extant for
Tiberius and for Nero, but not for the intervening reigns. But the
argument from silence is peculiarly dangerous when applied to Roman
coins in an outlying corner of the Empire in the first century. There
is absolutely no other evidence to support the theory that Damascus
was subject to Aretas in the time of Paul. Moreover the exact wording
of 2 Cor. xi. 32 f. surely suggests that Aretas did not control Damascus
at this time. What Paul implies is that when he was in Damascus the
ethnarch of Aretas watched the city in order to catch Paul if he came
out ; dpovpeivy is a common word for besieging a city, though it can
mean ‘to guard’ or ‘to garrison.’ The ethnarch may have been the
representative of Aretas in the city, but I suspect that he was the
Sheikh of the tribe of Nabateans who controlled the territory outside
the walls. In any case he was obviously watching the gates of Damascus
in order to catch Paul if he tried to get out. So long as Paul was
in Damascus the ethnarch had no power to kidnap him. But Paul
wanted to go elsewhere, presumably to Jerusalem, in order, as he says in
1 See also Ed. Schwartz, Nachrichten d. k. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Gottingen, 1906,
pp. 367 f.
VOL. V 0
The story
in Acts.
Conclusion.
194 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
Galatians, to see Cephas. Hence he left by the unusual but simple
method of a basket through the window, while the ethnarch watched
the door. It is a perfectly convincing narrative.
The story told in Acts has difficulties in itself and does not agree at
all with 2 Corinthians. According to it the danger to Paul came from
a Jewish plot, not from Arabian hostility. But the Jews were inside
Damascus. Paul was frequenting their society daily. Why should
they adopt the complicated tactics of waiting for him at the gate of
the city? Moreover, why, if it were a Jewish plot, should Paul go
straight to Jerusalem? It would be an exaggeration to say that the
story is impossible, but it looks very much like an example of the
tendency to give a Jewish basis to all hostility to Paul. In any case
we really have to choose between Paul’s own version in 2 Corinthians
and that in Acts. It is very improbable that there were two plots
against him, and that he twice was let down in a basket. According
to Acts, Paul escaped because the Jews inside Damascus wanted to kill
him; according to Corinthians, because the Arabs outside Damascus
were waiting for him; in each case they were looking for him to go
by the gate, and therefore he employed an unusual route, but the
difference between Jews inside and Arabs outside is considerable. It is
not likely that Paul confused them, and equally unlikely that they had
made common cause in a plot against him.
Assuming that the account in 2 Corinthians is the true version,
why were the Arabs hostile? The answer probably is that Paul had
been preaching in Nabataean Arabia for more than a year, and Acts
itself is witness that constituted authority rarely tolerated the Apostle
for a longer time. Galatians in this case, when correctly interpreted,
supplements and explains 2 Corinthians,
After the escape from Damascus comes the first visit to Jerusalem.
Here again Acts and Galatians agree that Paul went from Damascus
to Jerusalem, though according to himself it was three years after his
conversion, and according to Acts ‘some days’ after it. But there is
a more serious discrepancy. According to Paul’s own account he went
up to talk privately (that, surely, is the implication of toropfoat) with
Peter. He saw no other apostle except James the Lord’s brother. He
remained quite unknown to the Christians in Judaea, and it is absurd
to argue that Judaea means ‘outside of Jerusalem.’ But a very different —
story is told in Acts. He was at first suspected by the Christians, but
Barnabas—whom Paul reckons among the apostles—took him and
introduced him to the apostles, and he was then so far from remaining
unknown that he preached with such vigour that he had to be taken
out of the city and sent away to Tarsus in order to save his life from
the hostility which he had aroused.
All these discrepancies raise the same problem. They are of that
simple and direct nature which admits of no compromise. Either we
must take Paul’s version, or that of Acts. Paul was a principal in the
story, and he was writing nearer the events. There can be no doubt
xvi THE APOSTOLIC COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM 195
that in general his version ought to be followed. The question remains,
how far does this affect our confidence in Acts? It seems to me absurd
to say that Acts does not suffer. When a witness has been put in the
box and proves to be slightly wrong on almost every point, and very
wrong on some, his evidence on other questions is to be treated with
caution. Nevertheless those who have had most to do with witnesses
are the most reluctant to define the exact limits which this caution
ought to be given. Few ever give quite accurate testimony. Luke was
collecting information ; he heard other stories besides Paul’s. If he got
them confused, and sometimes did not follow Paul’s own account, it is not
surprising.
Would he have done so to such an extent if he had actually known
Paul in the flesh? It seems to me doubtful, but not impossible.
Note XVI. THe Apostotic Councin oF JERUSALEM}
By Kirsorr Laxr
The general problem of Acts xv. is so complicated that it can only The general
be stated—it cannot be solved—by a process of analysis into smaller 7°?!°™
ones.
The reason for this is that here, almost for the only time in Acts, we
really have a parallel narrative in a contemporary source, which may
fairly be taken as playing a part analogous to that of Mark as compared
with the gospel of Luke. It is analogous, however, not identical. For
whereas Mark and Luke, both being gospels, belong to the same class of
literature, Acts is history and Galatians is a controversial letter, two
entirely different types of composition; moreover Mark is one of the
sources of Luke, but there is no reason to suppose that Galatians was
used by the writer of Acts (see Vol. II. p. 308).
In Galatians i. 11-ii. 14 Paul gives a short account of his life from Gal. i. 11-ii.
his conversion down either to the time when he went to Galatia or to +
the time when he was writing. The first part of this account, i. 11-24,
covers the period described in Acts ix. 1-30 and has been discussed
in Additional Note 15. The second part, ii. 1-14, covers either the
visit described in Acts xi. 27-30 and xii. 25 or that described in Acts
xv. 1-35.
A comparison between the epistle and these verses of Acts presents
the following problems :
(i.) What is the meaning of Galatians ii. 4, 5?
(ii.) To which visit of Paul to Jerusalem, as described in Acts, does
Galatians ii. really correspond ?
1 This note was published in advance in the series of essays in honour of
Israel Abrahams, under the title ‘The Council of Jerusalem Described in
Acts xv.,’ Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams, New York, 1927,
pp. 244-265. ;
Gal. ii. 4f.
The Western
text.
The textual
problem.
196 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
(iii.) What is the meaning of Acts xv. in general and of the apostolic
decrees in particular ?
(iv.) The results of a comparison of Galatians ii. and Acts xv.
(i.) What is the meaning of Galatians i. 4, 5?
As so often happens in passages which present exegetical difficulties,
the text is uncertain. The ordinary text found in all critical editions
and in all translations of modern times is: dAN ovde Tiros 6 adv
épot “EKAAnv dv jvayKkdoOn repitpnOjvar* dia S& Tos mapeuraKrovs
PevdadéeA gous, oltwes mapernrAOov KatackoTnoar THy éXevOepiav pov
nv €xopev ev Xpwrt@ Iyvod, iva nyas KatadovrAdcovew, ois odd mpds
dpav eifapev TH brotayyH, iva 7 adAjnOea Tod edayyedlov Siopeivy mpds
tyas. ‘But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was
compelled to be circumcised, but because of the false brethren privily
brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have
in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage, to whom we
yielded in subjection, no! not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel
might continue with you.”
This text is found in all Greek mss. (including NB) except D, but
not in the Old Latin version or in the Peshitto Syriac. It has in so
far a claim to recognition that it has not merely much manuscript
support, but provides a sentence so impossible to construe and difficult
to explain that it would always invite alteration.
The serious rival to this text is found in D, Irenaeus, Victorinus,
Tertullian, Ambrosiaster, Primasius, and the Old Latin version: 4A
ovdé Tiros . . . qvayxdoOn mrepitpnOjvar, dia S& Tots TapewdKrovs
pevdadéAghous ... mpds wpayv cifapev TH trotayy iva dAnGeva
kTX,, omitting the words ois ovd¢ before rpds wpay.
Intermediate stages between these two readings are found in Marcion,
some Greek mss. known to Victorinus, and the Peshitto Syriac, who
read ot6€ mpds @pav cigapev xrX., but without ofs, and in Jerome’s
Commentary on Galatians, which implies ofs rpds @pav ei~apev without
ovdé. The question is whether these stages represent emendations of the
ordinary text or of that found in D, etc. Undoubtedly, Tertullian and
Irenaeus represent an older type of text than anything found, as a whole,
in our extant Mss., but in any given instance there is always the chance
that they have a purely Western corruption, and that the great Mss.
are right. The crucial point of the textual argument is to be found in
the reading of the Peshitto and Marcion. This seems to be certainly an
emendation of the one text or of the other. If we assume the text of
the Mss. to have been the original, it is possible that Marcion and Rabbula
(the maker of the Peshitto) struck out ofs to improve the grammar ;
if we assume the text of Tertullian and Irenaeus, they may have inserted
a negative in order to exclude the exegesis that Paul really did ‘ yield
in subjection.’
It will be seen, therefore, that the real difficulty is not that the
textual authorities are equally balanced, but that it is so difficult to see
which of the variants is really the lectio ardua which explains the
xvi THE APOSTOLIC COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM = 197
others. The question is, Which is more likely to have seemed ardua to
early scribes, and so to have first invited alteration? Would they have
been more shocked by the suggestion that Paul had circumcised Titus, or
by an anacoluthon in his statement that he did not do so?
It is, however, a curious fact that the chief importance of this
textual puzzle is to show that from the beginning no one was quite sure
what certain details in the passage meant. Nor is it appreciably easier
_ with one text rather than another. Whether it means ‘“‘ Titus was not
compelled, and remained uncircumcised” or “Titus was not compelled,
but was circumcised as an act of grace” depends entirely on the emphasis
read into the words. So also with the ordinary text, the choice between
thinking that Paul meant that he yielded but not in subjection, or
thinking that he meant that he did not yield at all, is entirely doubtful
apart from emphasis on certain words.
I am inclined to think that probability favours the text which omits
the ois and the ovd<, and that Titus probably was circumcised. Panl is
here defending himself against attack *: there is, therefore, a probability
that the incidents with which he deals are those which his opponents
had used to prove that he was subordinate to the Apostles at Jerusalem,
Certainly this is the case with the first visit to Jerusalem, and with
the interview with the Apostles on the second visit; clearly these were
facts out of which Paul’s opponents had tried to make capital, and
had thus forced him to give his own account of what had happened. If
we might assume that this is also the case with the episode of Titus, it
would follow that he had been circumcised, that Paul’s opponents had
used this as an argument, and that Paul therefore found it necessary
to explain that, though Titus had been circumcised, it was not under
compulsion, but as an act of grace, perhaps of misplaced concession to
false brethren, whose true character he did not at the time perceive.
This is the more probable view, but it may be argued on the other
hand, with fair plausibility, that the incident of Titus is only
mentioned in order to prove that the interview at Jerusalem was not
really a permanent submission, as could be seen from the fact that Titus
(who was a Gentile) was not circumcised, in spite of the pressure
exercised by the false brethren, to whom he yielded only on matters of
temporary importance, not on those of principle. Nor is it possible to
base a decision between these two lines of argument on our knowledge
of what Paul is likely to have done. Paul argues in his Epistles against
the necessity of circumcision, but on the other hand, if Acts be correct,
1 T have taken the foregoing paragraphs from my Earlier Epistles of St. Paul,
pp. 275 ff.
2 For a fresh statement of this aspect of Paul’s defence in the epistle,
including this verse, see J. H. Ropes, The Singular Problem of the Epistle to the
Galatians, 1929. :
® Or, if another text be followed, ‘‘to whom we did not yield even for
a moment,” or with still another exegetical possibility, ‘‘to whom we did not
yield even for a moment in any real subjection.”
* See note on xvi. 3.
Conclusion.
198 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
he circumcised Timothy, who was, after all, a Greek, even though his
mother was a Jewess, and we may safely say that no one after reading
Galatians v. would ever have expected such a concession to Jewish feeling,
though v. 11 (“If I preach circumcision, why am I persecuted ?”) may
be taken as implying that in some way he had given rise to the state-
ment that he did recommend circumcision.
Thus the only possible summing up of the whole point seems to be
that a verdict of ‘not proven’ ought to be returned. It is possible to
make attractive statements in the spirit of an advocate for either side,
but if a judicial attitude is to be observed no other verdict is conceivable.
If, however, I were obliged to take sides, I should say that there is a
balance of argument in favour of the view that Titus was circumcised.
However this may be, the most important facts are also the clearest.
The trouble began in Jerusalem, and it was concerned with the question
of circumcision. Paul did not go up because of it, but it came upon
him because of ‘ false brethren’ who had been brought in unawares when
owing to revelation he was already there for another purpose, which he
scarcely defines but suggests to have been the care of the poor.t More-
over, the leaders were ultimately convinced that he was justified in the
gospel which he was preaching among the Gentiles. Peter and the
other ‘pillars’ recognized that he was the leader of the mission to the
heathen, as Peter was of the mission to the Jews. No ‘terms’ are
mentioned. It was, according to Galatians, an unconditional surrender
to the Antiochian position. But not every one was convinced, and
further trouble remained. Peter came down to Antioch, and so also
did emissaries from James. These latter raised, not the question of
circumcision, but the terms on which Jewish Christians might properly
associate with Gentiles. The position of James was one of opposition to
unconditional intercourse with Gentiles, and Peter and Barnabas, who, like
Paul, had been freely mingling with them, were persuaded that James
was right.
It is the narrative which must be accepted as Paul’s own statement
of the sequence of events. It is extremely unlikely that he is wrong in
his account of the matter. On the other hand it is by no means impossible
that Luke has foreshortened events, and combined narratives. Galatians,
therefore, not Acts, gives the final verdict, and it is a radically bad
1 Paul is not very explicit on the subject. That the object of his visit was
the care of the poor is implied by Gal. ii. 10, but all that Paul emphasizes is that
he went up by revelation, nct as a matter of obedience to the apostles in
Jerusalem. It is from Acts xi., not from Galatians, that the ‘relief’ nature of
his visit is to be gathered. The reverse is true of his final visit to Jerusalem.
Acts says hardly anything about the ‘relief’ which Paul brought from Europe,
but 1 and 2 Corinthians show that to take this to Jerusalem was one of his chief
objects, and that he had been working for it for years, I think it is possible
that the ‘relief’ element was really present on both occasions, and possibly its
long-continued nature indicates that it was nut due—as Acts would suggest—
merely to famine, but also to the ill-judged ‘communism’ which must have
permanently impoverished the church in Jerusalem.
—— — ee a SS. ee
xvi THE APOSTOLIC COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM 199
method which in any way tries to squeeze the Pauline statement into
harmony with the Lucan. If the two accounts differ it is Paul and not
Luke who must be followed.
(ii.) To which visit of Paul to Jerusalem, as described in Acts, does Paul's
Galatians it. really correspond ? Mes OR
To this question three answers have been given, (a) By most of the () Rp aap
older commentators it was held that Galatians ii. clearly corresponded to :
Acts xv. The best statement of this theory is certainly that given es
Lightfoot in his St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, pp. 123 f. He
writes as follows: “The geography is the same. In both narratives the
communications take place between Jerusalem and Antioch: in both the
headquarters of the false brethren are at the former place, their machina-
tions are carried on in the latter: in both the Gentile apostles go up
to Jerusalem apparently from Antioch, and return thence to Antioch
again. The time is the same, or at least not inconsistent. St. Paul
places the events fifteen or sixteen years after his conversion: St. Luke’s
narrative implies that they took place about the year 51.4. The persons
are the same: Paul and Barnabas appear as the representatives of the
Gentile churches, Cephas and James as the leaders of the circumcision.
The agitators are similarly described in the two accounts: in the Acts,
as converted Pharisees, who had imported their dogmas into the Christian
Church ; in the Epistle, as false brethren who attempt to impose the
bondage of the Law on the Gentile converts. The two apostles of the
Gentiles are represented in both accounts as attended: ‘certain other
Gentiles’ (€€ avr@v) are mentioned by St. Luke; Titus, a Gentile, is
named by St. Paul. The subject of dispute is the same: the circumcision
of the Gentile converts. The character of the conference is in general the
same: a prolonged and hard-fought contest. The result is the same:
the exemption of the Gentiles from the enactments of the Law, and the
recognition of the apostolic commission of Paul and Barnabas by the
leaders of the Jewish Church.”
The strength of this position is in its affirmations. It certainly
shows that there is so strong a resemblance between the circumstances -
of these two visits to Jerusalem that it is incredible that they were
repeated so exactly on another occasion. The suggestion that they were
is made worse if Galatians ii. refers to another visit actually mentioned
in Acts, for that would mean that the same controversy arose twice, that
Luke described it on one occasion and Paul on the other. Therefore,
since Lightfoot wrote, the majority of English critics have always agreed
that Acts xv. and Galatians ii. refer to the same visit.
The difficulty is not in this affirmation, but its application to the
details of the story, for it entails conclusions which are very disturbing.
1 Lightfoot explains in a footnote that ‘‘ this is calculated by a back reckon-
ing of the time spent from the Apostolic Council to the appointment of Festus,
the date of which is fixed independently at a.p. 60.” A modern writer would
probably speak less certainly ; see Turner’s article on ‘Chronology’ in Hastings’
Dictionary of the Bible and Additional Note 34.
200 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
If Galatians ii.= Acts xv., it was, according to the sequence of events
given in Acts, Paul’s third visit to Jerusalem. He went there first soon
after his conversion, a second time for the Antiochian mission to relieve
the famine in Judaea, and Acts xv. is the third visit. But Paul’s own
statement in Galatians is that the visit described in chapter ii. was only
his second ; and he is emphatic on the point, because he is arguing that
he was not and never had been subordinate to Jerusalem, and that the
facts of his life show that he never had had an opportunity for being in
such a position. He calls God to witness that he is not lying. Why
should he have voluntarily weakened his position by omitting a visit to
Jerusalem? The suggestion is incredible.
This point had of course been seen by the Tiibingen school, but they
had used it merely to discredit Luke. In England the belief was wide-
spread that they had been fully answered, and no further serious attention
was paid to them, except by a very few scholars who knew that the last
word had not been said on the subject, but had not formulated any clear
theory of their own. In Germany there were three parties—those who
inherited the Tiibingen tradition and thought that Acts was quite
untrustworthy, those who had inherited the opposite view and believed
that somehow the discrepancy between Acts and Galatians could be
reconciled, and a younger generation which had for the moment given
up historical criticism in favour of Quellenkritik, and produced an endless
series of theories as to the source of Acts.
Lightfoot was, of course, fully aware of all that was going on in
Germany. He was convinced that the Tiibingen school was wrong in
its general presentation of history, and he held that Acts was more
trustworthy than most of his German contemporaries admitted.
His own solution of the difficulty was: “The answer is to be sought
in the circumstances under which that visit was paid. The storm of
persecution had broken over the Church of Jerusalem. One leading
Apostle had been put to death; another rescued by a miracle had fled
for his life. At this season of terror and confusion Paul and Barnabas
arrived. It is probable that every Christian of rank had retired from
the city. No mention is made of the Twelve; the salutations of the
Gentile Apostles are received by ‘the Elders.’ They arrived charged
with alms for the relief of the poor brethren of Judaea. Having deposited
these in trustworthy hands, they would depart with all convenient speed.
Any lengthened stay might endanger their lives. Nor, indeed, was there
any motive for remaining. Even had St. Paul purposed holding con-
ferences with the Apostles or the Church of the Circumcision, at this
moment of dire distress it would have been impossible. Of this visit
then, so brief and so hurried, he makes no mention here. His object
is not to enumerate his journeys to Jerusalem, but to define his relations
with the Twelve ; and on these relations it had no bearing.” But this
explanation overlooks the fact that in Galatians Paul is clearing himself
of the accusation that he is a disobedient subordinate of the apostles in
Jerusalem by showing that on his visits to Jerusalem he never was
subordinate to them. Surely it is inconceivable that he omitted a visit
es i”
xvi THE APOSTOLIC COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM 201
which can scarcely have been unknown, especially if he could have said
that the apostles were then absent. Nor is the picture of the apostles
retiring to safety and leaving the Church to presbyters a very convincing
suggestion, or consistent with Acts viii. 1.
(6) A new suggestion was made in 1895 by Sir William Ramsay, () Ramsay's
who recognized that Lightfoot’s argument was weak when it minimized ‘°”’
the ‘ famine relief’ visit. He therefore took the obvious step of identifying
the second visit in Acts with the second visit in Galatians. He thought
that Acts said nothing about the details of the visit because it had been
held in private.
At the time when I first read his book Ramsay’s view, though
not widely accepted, seemed to me the best way out of the difficulty.
I followed it up in my Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, and so did Mr. C. W.
Emmet in his Epistle to the Galatians and in Vol. II. It has also been
recently accepted by Prof. F. C. Burkitt in his Christian Beginnings and
by Canon Streeter. Nevertheless the theory never won general approval ;
and rightly so. The obvious difficulty is that if the whole question had
really been settled beforehand by the apostles at the second visit to
Jerusalem, why did they pretend to argue it all de novo at the meeting
described in Acts xv., as though they had never discussed, much less
settled, the problem ?
Nevertheless, just as there is convincing power in Lightfoot’s view, (©
that Galatians ii. must mean the same visit as Acts xv., so also is there in Schwart’s
Ramsay’s contention that Galatians ii. must refer to Paul’s second visit.
The problem is thus an impasse if we take Acts as it stands.
(c) The succession of critics whose work has pointed to the only
possible solution is Weizsicker, McGiffert, and Schwartz. In varying
ways they all used the same key to solve the riddle. Acts xi. (the
famine relief visit) and Acts xv. are both descriptions of the visit
referred to in Galatians ii. derived from different sources and described
from different points of view.
The clear advantages of this theory are:
(1) It is based on the known fact that Luke used ‘sources, and that
in his gospel he repeats, on occasion, the same saying from Mark and
from another source which is found to have been used by Matthew also.
Thus the saying “There is nothing hid that shall not be revealed”
comes in Luke viii. 17 and in Luke xii. 2. The first passage is from
Mark, the second from Q (?) (cf. Matt. x. 26). A glance at the third
appendix to Huck’s Synopse shows at least seven other instances of
this tendency to double a saying because it was found in more than
one source. Nor is there anything strange in this. The characteristic
is found in Matthew, and in general in almost all writers of this period
who made use of ‘ sources,’
1 See Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, pp. 48 ff. Prof. Burkitt, as I
have learnt by correspondence with him, is impressed by this point and thinks
that the fact that in Galatians Paul had a private interview with the Apostles,
but in Acts a public discussion, invalidates Lightfoot’s view that Galatians ii.
refers to the same episode as Acts xv.
202 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
(2) It is the only theory which can do justice to the arguments
set out by Lightfoot in favour of identifying Acts xv. and Galatians ii.
without doing violence to the fact that Paul says that Galatians ii. was
his second visit to Jerusalem. The difficulty of reconciling these points
disappears when it is seen that the two stories refer to the same visit,
described from different points of view.
It has not, I think, found so much favour as it might have done,
because it is bound up with Schwartz’s theory of chronology (see
Additional Notes 18 and 34) and with his belief that John the son of
Zebedee was put to death together with his brother James,
It is, however, not necessary to accept these theories because we
hold that Acts xv. is a different version of the visit to Jerusalem
mentioned in Acts xi. 34, so that both these accounts are parallel to
Galatians ii. and both are really Paul’s second visit.
The test of The most exacting test which can be applied to any reconstruction
order. of an historical narrative is whether it produces a result in accordance
with the oldest tradition, especially as to the order of events. Two
narratives may reasonably differ as to the importance or even the
character of various episodes, but if they are of first-rate value they
will not often differ as to the order in which the events happened.
Now it is on this question of order that Acts xv. and Galatians differ
most in the present arrangement of the narrative, but this point has
sometimes been overlooked in the interest of the central difficulty of
whether the visit was Paul’s second or third.
6 According to Galatians Paul went to Jerusalem by revelation, not
‘because of any controversy in the Church, and he hints that the visit
was concerned with the care of the poor. While in Jerusalem he was
attacked by ‘false brethren’; there was a discussion, but he won the
day; then on his return to Antioch the difficulties again arose,
because emissaries from Jerusalem reopened the question, and persuaded
Peter and Barnabas to desert the Hellenistic side which they had
hitherto adopted.
It would, however, seem that the problem was not quite the
same as it had been. In Jerusalem the question seems to have been
that of circumcision. It is true that this is scarcely stated in so many
words, but it certainly seems to be implied by the story of Titus. But
in Antioch the question was the further one of the conditions of
intercourse between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Paul, Barnabas,
and Peter had mingled freely with Gentiles, and joined in their meals,
But the emissaries of James held that this was improper. There is
no suggestion that they were claiming that the Gentiles should be
circumcised, but they did insist on a social barrier between circumcised
and uncircumcised. Paul did not yield on this point, but Barnabas
and Peter gave way.
Acts, as it stands, gives a different sequence of events. According
to it the trouble arose in Antioch, was carried to Jerusalem by Paul
and Barnabas, who went there for that express purpose, and, partly
by them but still more by Peter, the Church was persuaded of the
xvi THE APOSTOLIC COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM 203
essential rightness of the Antiochian position. But this settlement
was accompanied by the imposition of three (or four) requirements,
which from their nature seem to be intended to fix the conditions of
intercourse between Jewish and Gentile Christians. They would be
in place as the solution of the controversy, which according to Galatians
arose in Antioch between Peter and Paul, but they scarcely fit into
the struggle about circumcision, which according to both Galatians,
and Acts was the subject of the meeting in Jerusalem. Nevertheless,
taking Acts as it stands, these conditions seem to be intended as the —
solution of the controversy about circumcision, There is nothing in
Acts about a new dispute in Antioch either on circumcision or on the
social intercourse of Jew and Gentile, for though Paul and Barnabas
quarrelled on their return, it was about a personal matter.
Thus, taking Acts as it stands, there is a serious difference between y /
it and Galatians as to the order of events. This difficulty used to be
solved most often by the rather violent method of supposing that Paul
in Galatians ii. deserted the chronological order of events and that Peter’s
visit to Antioch was earlier, not later, than the conference in Jerusalem.
This is Zahn’s and Turner’s view.!'_ It is in itself highly improbable, and
would hardly have been suggested but for the apparent evidence of Acts
that the trouble began in Antioch and was settled in Jerusalem.
A far more plausible solution is provided by the distinction of
sources suggested above. According to this the Antiochian tradition in
Acts is represented by Acts xi. 27-30; xii. 25 =Gal. ii. 1 ff. ; Acts xv. 1f,;
xv. 30 ff.=Gal. ii. 11 ff The possibility exists that the missionary
journey in xiii.-xiv. comes from this source; Galatians, however, does
not mention this journey, so prominent in Acts, partly because it was
not germane to the argument, partly because the Galatians knew all about
it, but it is hinted at as the natural result of the agreement reached
in Jerusalem. It is, however, also possible that the journey is misplaced.
Luke on the other hand omits the temporary defection of Peter, and
ascribes the estrangement of Paul from Barnabas to a personal quarrel
about Mark. The sequence of events, taking Galatians as our standard,
with the sections of Acts divided according to their sources, is as follows :
Galatians. Antioch source. Jer. source.
1. Paul’s visit to Jerusalem. Gal. ii. 1-2. Acts xi. 27-30. oe
2. The ‘Council’ of the Apostles. Gal. ii. 3-10. me Acts xv. 3-29.
8. Paul’s return to Antioch. implied by ? Acts xii. 25. Acts xv. 30.
Gal. ti: 11;
4. Peter’s arrival in Antioch. Gal. ii. 11. ses
5. The arrival of emissariesfrom Gal. ii. 12. Acts xv. 1-2.
James,
6. Aquarrel of Paulagainst Peter Gal. ii. 13-14. % Acts xv. 36 ff.
and Barnabas.
Possibly the mission to the Gentiles in Acts xiii.-xiv. should be inserted
between 3 and 4, but it seems to me more probable that we should accept
1 Article on ‘Chronology’ in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible.
The
Apostolic
Decrees.
~
204 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTH
Schwartz’s view. It probably comes from a ‘ Barnabas-tradition,’ is mis-
placed and should come after 6 (see Additional Note 34).
If we accept this reconstruction the order of events is the same in
the Antiochian source of Acts as in Galatians—a visit to Jerusalem, a
meeting with the apostles, a return to Antioch, and a quarrel in
Antioch, instigated by emissaries from Jerusalem who influenced (Peter
and) Barnabas. The order of events is thus exactly the same in both
documents. The only difference is that the dispute in Antioch is
represented in Acts as being about circumcision and the Law, instead
/¢ of about social intercourse. *
The result of the editorial manipulation of the sources was that
Luke inserted the narrative of events, as he had heard them from the
side of Jerusalem, into the Antiochian tradition, in the description of
the result of the trouble in Antioch,-so that the defection of Barnabas
is disconnected from the story of the Jewish emissaries. Thus xv. 3-35
gives the Jerusalem story of what happened when Paul and Barnabas
went up to Jerusalem, as the Antiochian source also relates in xi. 27 ff.
It is impossible to say whether this tradition reached Luke in a written
form or not, but it clearly reflects the views of Jerusalem rather than
of Antioch. It also really agrees with the other evidence in that it too,
like Galatians and the Antiochian source, when read by itself, makes the
controversy begin in Jerusalem.
To fit this story into the Antiochian frame Luke had to add some
editorial sentences, which made the Jerusalem narrative appear the
story of another incident, and forced xv. 1—the coming of emissaries
from Jerusalem—into connexion with the Circumcision controversy
instead of with the Intercourse controversy. He thus produced the very
unconvincing story of a controversy which began in Antioch, and was then
removed to Jerusalem by representatives of the Antiochian mission,
who, however, said nothing about the controversy which took them to
Jerusalem, until it was actually forced on their attention.
He also introduced into the narrative of the discussion in Jerusalem
decrees which have prima facie more to do with the subject of social
intercourse, but the exact importance of this point will be more con-
veniently discussed a little later (see pp. 210 ff.).
(iii.) The meaning of Acts xv. in general and of the apostolic decrees
in particular.
Reading Acts xv. as a connected narrative, and merely looking for
the general meaning of the decrees, it is clear that the meaning of
Luke was that they represent the minimum of the Law which was
to be required from Gentile Christians in lieu of circumcision, The
difficulty of accepting this view is that it seems so inconsistent with
Paul’s position, as stated in Galatians and Romans, that it is almost
incredible that he would have accepted such a compromise. Moreover,
1 This statement would not be accepted by Prof. Burkitt or by many other
authorities. The most persuasive statement of their case seems to me to be
Burkitt’s Christian Beginnings, pp. 108-134. He argues that Paul’s objection
—_—
xvi THE APOSTOLIC COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM 205
closer investigation into the wording of the decrees confirms this doubt,
and suggests that the decrees were concerned with the problem of social
intercourse between Jews and Gentiles in the Christian Church, not with
the problem of circumcision.
The apostolic decrees forbid three things, eidwAd@vra, ata, and
mopveia.,
(a) EiéwAdOura is the Jewish equivalent of the ordinary Greek
Ocd0uta? or iepdOura. But from 1 Cor. viii. it seems that «iSwAdOuTa
might be used in a wider or in a narrower sense. In the narrow sense
it would imply actual participation in a sacrificial meal. We are
naturally inclined to look on these meals as solemn religious services.
Some of them no doubt were; but others probably resembled a dinner-
party more closely than a church service. It was the custom to
issue invitations to dinner in the temple, and the fiction was that the
god was himself the host. For instance, Pap Oxy i. 110 says: épwrd
oe Xatpypwv Seurvpoae eis Kdelvyv (kAivyv) Tod Kupiov Lapdaridos
év TH LVapareiw avpiov aris eotiv ié, dd pas O'S In the wider
sense the greater part of the meat sold in the shops was ‘ offered to idols,’
as the animal from which it was taken had usually been consecrated
to some god, even if it were only by the ceremonial burning of a
few hairs. Thus, in this strict sense, to avoid eating things offered
to idols was difficult, if not impossible. It would, however, appear
that it was not quite impossible, for Paul implies that by making
inquiry the Corinthians might be able to avoid such meat.
Its meaning in Acts is defined by vs. 20 as Ta dAuryipata Tov
ei6HAwv, which cannot be narrowed down to the actual participation
in a sacrifice, or even to the eating of sacrificed meat,—it means idolatry,
described by that part of it which was most prominent and least easy
to avoid.
to ‘Law’ was only when it was regarded as the necessary basis of a right
relation between God and Man—not when it was the basis of relation between
human beings. Moreover the Epistles show that the decrees, thus interpreted,
would have been agreeable to Paul. All this is quite true, except that the
omission of any reference to afua (I doubt whether the vegetarians of Romans
really cover this point) seems more important to me than to Burkitt. But the
point which he seems to me to pass over far too lightly is that Acts appears to
regard the decrees as a substitute for the Law. In this sense I feel sure that
Paul would never have accepted them. If I understand him fully Burkitt and
I agree that the decrees are in fact social regulations. As such Paul might have
accepted them, but Acts, at least, to me shows that Luke regarded them as the
end of the controversy about circumcision, not about social intercourse.
1 For a discussion of the text, and the reason for saying ‘three’ rather than
‘four,’ see Vol. III. pp. 265 ff.
2 From Phrynichus, Eeloga, p. 159 (Lobeck’s edition), it would appear that
6eb0ura was the older name. There is a good note on these words by J. Weiss
in Meyer’s Kommentar on 1 Cor. viii. 1.
3 For further examples see Lietzmann’s note on Kulimahle on pp. 50 f. of the
2nd edition of the commentary on 1 Cor. in his Handbuch.
eidwAdOuTa.
aipa.
TrOpvela.
206 ###THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
(6) Afua might mean murder, and it has often been so interpreted.
But murder, unlike idolatry, was not a common practice difficult to avoid,
and it seems unlikely to be intended (but see p. 209). It may refer to the
Jewish objection to blood as a form of food, and mvixrdv be a correct
gloss on its meaning. This was based on Leviticus vii. 26, which in
Leviticus xvii. 10 was specially extended to cover the ‘stranger living
in Israel’: “ Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the
strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood, I
will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut
him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood.”
The later Judaism always devised all manner of rules to safeguard the
possibility of eating blood, especially by ordering that animals must be
killed by effusion of blood only, and there must be no possibility of their
death being hastened by any other means, such as strangulation. Thus
the ‘things strangled’ of the Neutral text is only another way of
expressing the command? to keep from blood. A third alternative
view is that ‘blood’ is here used with reference to sacrifice, and is
merely an instance of the contamination incurred by joining in idolatrous
worship. (See Strack, ii. pp. 730-739.)
(c) Ilopveéa. might mean fornication in a general sense; but it may
equally mean ‘ marriage within the forbidden degrees,’ which the rabbis
described as ‘forbidden for ropveia.’ So also in Numbers xxv. 1f. the
context makes it plain that the wopveia of the Israelites was marriage
with the women of Midian (cf. Apoc. ii. 20). (See Strack, ii. pp. 729 f.)
Once more it has been suggested that zopveia, like <iSwAd@uTa and
aia, is merely another example of the contamination of idolatry, so that
the three parts of the decree are really a single command to avoid heathen
worship, made emphatic by mentioning its three most prominent features.
It is undoubtedly true that a sexual metaphor is often adopted in the
Old Testament to describe the worship of false gods. It is also true that
religious prostitution was an integral part of some if not all oriental
cults. On the other hand, ropveia is often used in the Pauline epistles,
and always in the ordinary sense. Is it probable that the word is used
here of religious prostitution with no hint that it is being given this
special sense ?
Each of the words is therefore capable of more than one shade of
meaning, and three conceivable interpretations can be suggested for the
decrees as a whole. (i.) They may be a food law; (ii) they may be a
command to avoid heathen worship, expressed by reference to its three
salient features; (iii.) they may be a ‘moral law’ to avoid three notable
sins. But no one of these interpretations (and I do not know of any
fourth possibility) can be adopted without straining the meaning of one
of the three commands, or otherwise raising difficulties. A food law is
an inappropriate setting for ropveéa; a command to avoid idolatry repre-
sented by its three salient features is more consistent with the language
of the commands, but the use of zopveéa in this special sense is a little
1 See Strack, ii. pp. 730 ff.
xvi THE APOSTOLIC COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM 207
unusual, and it is a serious difficulty that none of the early Christian
writers interpreted the decrees in this way; a moral law seems at first
less open to objection, for it was the popular view of the early Christian
writers of the West, but eidwAdOura is after all not really a synonym for
eiSwAoAartpeia, and ‘eating sacrifices’ might be thought to be almost—
not quite—as out of place in a ‘moral law’ as zopveia is in a food law.
But the question whether these regulations were a ‘food law’ or a Food law
‘moral law’ presents a somewhat wrong antithesis. Assuming that {™¢™™!
eiowAdOuTa means principally food offered to idols, and afua means food
containing blood, it would still not be fair to call this a food law in the
sense in which the ordinary man would now understand the phrase.
An exact parallel is to be found in American law, which forbids the
making of wine; that is a food law, but, in the minds of those who
assent to it, its justification is that it is wrong to touch alcohol. It is
the ‘wrongness,’ not the ‘food,’ which is forbidden ; and that was exactly
the attitude of the Jews towards the use of blood as food. There was
therefore nothing inappropriate to their mind in putting ‘blood’ into
the same category with idolatry and forbidden marriages, and making
abstinence from it one of the conditions of intercourse between Jews and
God-fearers. For, after all, the most hopeful line of approach to the
subject is to remember always that the question which necessitated such
rules can only have been that of the terms on which Gentiles who were
Christian God-fearers? could meet with Christian Jews, and these again
with Jews who were not Christian. There is at least a probability that
the terms were the same as those on which God-fearers and Jews
met when neither were Christian. The problem was for Christians only
a passing one, for it was soon solved by the Synagogue, which turned
out the Christians, and made it a matter of no practical importance
whether a Christian was a Jew or a God-fearer, as the community of
Jews would not associate with him in any case. But for the moment
Jewish Christians still hoped to preserve the continuity of the institution,
and ‘ terms’ were a practical necessity.
There is unfortunately very little known about the Jewish rules as Jewish rules
to intercourse with God-fearers, It must, however, be remembered that ae
though God-fearers is a convenient phrase for us to use, it gives an undue
clearness of definition (see Additional Note 8). God-fearers are not a
special class recognized by Jewish rules, as the ‘sojourners’ were in ancient
Israel or in the imaginary Israel of the Talmud ; the latter are the ‘ pious
heathen’ who refrain from idolatry, and in the opinion of many Jews
will have a share in the World to come. Possibly in the first century
in Palestine there was a formulated statement of the amount of belief
and conduct required to give a heathen the requisite degree of piety,
1 See G. Resch, Das Aposteldekret.
2 See pp. 84 ff. for the caution to be observed in the use of this word.
® This problem was very soon replaced for the Christian community by the
question of intercourse with friendly heathen ; but I do not know of any evidence
to show that this question was ever dealt with formally, or that anyone ever
suggested that the apostolic decrees should be applied to it.
Leviticus
and the
Noachian
Commands.
The
Diaspora.
208 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
but there seems to be no proof that this was so. More probably, perhaps,
popular opinion crystallized more or less unconsciously into a general
belief that such and such a man (eg. Cornelius) was pious—that he
‘feared God.’
Possibly the rules which were applied to the ‘sojourners ’—heathen
living among Jews—may give some clues as to Jewish policy. This can
be gleaned from Leviticus, which specifically prescribes certain rules for
the ‘stranger within your gates.’ These resident heathen were obliged (i.)
to abstain from offering sacrifice to strange gods (Lev. xvii. 7-9), (ii.) from
blood (Lev. xvii. 10ff.), (iii.) from marriage within the forbidden degrees
(Lev. xviii. 6-26), (iv.) from work on the Sabbath (Exod. xx. 10f.), and
(v.) from eating leavened bread during the Passover week (Exod, xii. 18 f.).
These regulations were expanded and ultimately codified by the Rabbis as
the Seven Commands given to the sons of Noah,! and therefore binding
on all mankind. They are set out in Sanhedrin 56 b: (i.) Obedience to
law, (ii.) Abstinence from blasphemy, (iii.) Abstinence from idolatry, (iv.)
Abstinence from marriage within the forbidden degrees, (v.) Abstinence
from blood, (vi.) Abstinence from robbery, (vii.) Abstinence from meat
cut from a living animal.
The formulation of these rules is doubtless later than Acts, and their
application to ‘sojourners’ is an historic fiction. At the time when they
were drawn up the Jews had no land of their own. They were them-
selves the ‘sojourners,’ and the rules in Sanhedrin for the treatment of
strangers living in Jewish territory were devised with a view to a restored
Israel rather than based strictly on the memory of the past, just as the
tractate Middoth gives the measurements for a future temple rather than
merely the tradition of the old one. Nevertheless the picture of the
future was based on memory of the past. In the case of the temple the
memory was real, and the rules as to sojourners, so far as they represent
memory, may have been based on the treatment of God-fearers. At the
time of Acts the formulation of this treatment was probably not so
definite as is that of the ‘sojourners’ in the Sanhedrin, but there is
sufficient resemblance between the apostolic decrees and the Noachian
rules to make it possible that both represent the regulations which
controlled the intercourse of Jews and God-fearers in the middle of the
first century.
It is however also possible that a somewhat different view obtained
in the Diaspora. For the reconstruction of Jewish life in Greek cities
outside Palestine we have distressingly little evidence, and we do not
know how far the rules found in the Talmud ever obtained in the
Diaspora in the first century. For the present purpose Philo gives no
help. He inculcates the duty of kindness to the heathen who accept the
true God, but it is never quite clear whether he is speaking of proselytes
or God-fearers. More important are two striking passages in the Jewish
part of the Oracula Sibyllina, in which the writer appeals to the heathen
to mend their ways and seek salvation.
1 According to one tradition six of these commands were given to Adam,
and only the seventh was added in the time of Noah.
xvi THE APOSTOLIC COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM 209
(1) Or. Sib. iv. 24-84,
bABioe avOpdrwv Keivor Kata yalav cova,
dccor 5 orépEovor péyav Oedv evAoyéovres
mplv mieev payéev te weroGdres edoeBinoww*
ot vnods pev aravtas arapvjcovrat iddvres
kat Bwpots, cixaia AiMwv adidptpara Kwopdy,
aipacw eppixov peptarpeva Kat Ovoinoww
tetparddwv' etdoovar & évds Oeotd cis peya Kddos
otte hévov péEavres atrdabadrov odte kAoraiov
Képdos darepwmrodgovtes, a 81) plyiora TérvKTa,
ovd’ ap ex adAXotpin Koityn ré0ov aioxpov €xovrTes,
ovd’ éx dpoevos UBpw dmrexOéa Te oTvyepiy Te.
(2) Or. Sab. iv. 162-170.
& péAcor, petderGe, Bpotoi, réde, nde pds opyrv
ravtoinv aydynte Ocdv peyav, dAAG peEvTes
ddicyava Kal oTovaxas dvipoxtacias Te Kal UBpeus
ev rotapois Ao’ioacHe SArov Seyas devdoww,,
xeipds T Extavboavtes és aiPepa tav mdpos epywv
ovyyvopnv aireiobe Kai evdAoyiats doéBevav
mukpav tAdokerGe Oeds Sioer perdvorav
ovd oAgre’ ratoes 5 xdAov adi, Hvrep aravres
evoeBinv repitipov evi dperiv aoKnonre.
It is noteworthy that here in both passages, besides the recognition of
the true God, abstention from idolatry and idolatrous sacrifices, murder,
theft, and immorality is inculcated as necessary in the first passage, and
from violence, murder, and immorality (vBprs) in the second. This is
very similar to the apostolic decrees if they be interpreted as moral
_ requirements. Of course the writer of the Oracula does not actually
say that he was willing to associate with Gentiles who accepted his
precepts, but he certainly indicates that God would receive them, and
the greater may be supposed to include the less.
(iv.) The results of a comparison between Galatians i. and Acts xv.
The preceding discussion has rendered probable two conclusions. (i.)
The conference in Jerusalem described in Galatians ii. was concerned with
the question of circumcision, and the applicability of the Law to Gentile
Christians. Luke regarded the decrees as the settlement of this issue.
But there is nothing in the Pauline epistles to support this view. (ii.)
The actual intention of the decrees, as established by the meaning of
the words, and a consideration of contemporary Jewish thought, was to
facilitate the social intercourse. of Jewish and Gentile Christians by
1 Cognate to this, though not quite the same, is the decision of the Rabbis
in Hadrian’s persecution that Jews might save their lives by other infractions
of the Law, but not by idolatry, incest or other sexual offences, or by homicide
(Sanhedrin 74a, Jer. Sanhedrin 21b, Jer. Shebi‘it 85a). See G. F. Moore,
Judaism, vol. ii. p. 106, and the article on ‘Martyrdom’ in the Jewish Encyclo-
pacdia.
VOL. V . P
Acts and
Galatians
compared.
The
explanation
of Luke’s
confusion.
210 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
establishing rules of conduct for Gentiles which would remove the possibility
of offence in Jewish circles.
That is to say, the internal evidence of the decrees indicates that they,
or the policy which they embody, belong to a different problem from
that with which Luke has connected them. Moreover, Galatians clearly
indicates that the controversy as to the conditions of social intercourse to
which they really belong began in Antioch between Paul on the one
side and Peter, Barnabas, and the representatives of James on the other
side, after Paul, Peter, and James had come to an agreement in Paul’s
favour as to the original controversy with regard to circumcision and
the keeping of the Law.
Assuming that the policy represented by the decrees is not a fiction,
the critical problem is to form a reasonable hypothesis to explain why
Luke represents as a ‘minimum-law’ requirement what was really the
regulation of social intercourse.
Three points are provided by the Epistles and Acts, and by the
known course of the history of Christianity.
(i) Owing to the speedy rejection of Christians from the Jewish
society the question of social intercourse between Jewish and Gentile
Christians soon ceased to be a real issue. Except in Palestine Jewish
Christianity had either ceased to exist or was quite unimportant before
A.D. 100. It is therefore not impossible that Luke may really never
have come into personal contact with the situation to which the decrees
belong, just as he probably never had come into personal contact with
glossolalia, and so misunderstood and misrepresented the account of it
which is behind Acts ii.4
(ii.) Galatians ii. is clear evidence of Paul’s opinion that the controversy
as to circumcision had been settled and that Peter and James agreed
with him, but that the controversy as to social intercourse had not been
settled, that James was on the other side from himself, and that Peter and
Barnabas had gone over to James,
(iii.) It is possible that attention should be paid to the fact that in
Acts xxi, James mentions the decrees as a new thing, of which Paul was
unaware. This might suggest that while Paul had been in Asia and
Achaia the controversy had been settled. But though this is possible it
would be unwise to press the point, for the speech of James is quite
likely to be Lucan, and the passage can be explained as reminding Paul
of what he knows, rather than as telling what he does not. Moreover,
though the meaning is not quite clear, James seems to imply—as Luke
would doubtless have intended—that the decrees were the minimum
requirement from the Gentiles as a substitute for circumcision.
Putting these three points together—and the third can really be
omitted—the most probable hypothesis seems to be that Luke either knew
_ of the decrees as an actual document, or at least of the policy which they
represent, as the settlement of a controversy between Jewish and Gentile
Christians. But he did not quite know what the exact controversy was.
Finding, however, in his sources an account of a rather stormy meeting .
1 See Additional Note 10.
xvi THE APOSTOLIC COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM 211
at Jerusalem, which ended in the abolition of circumcision for Gentile
Christians, he assumed that the decrees were part of the decision of this
meeting, fixing a ‘minimum-law’ requirement, and he told the story
accordingly. In reality the decrees belong to the second controversy,
and Paul had not been a party to them, though he had played a leading ,/
role in the previous and more important discussion as to circumcision,
So much is reasonably clear, but were the decrees the end of the
dispute at Antioch described in Gal. ii. 11, and do they really belong to
the Church of Antioch rather than of Jerusalem? Were they accepted
by Peter and Barnabas but not by Paul ?
It is relatively unimportant to decide—and it is impossible to do so— Did the
whether Luke actually had seen a definite letter of the apostles embodying APostles
the decrees, It is, of course, possible that such decrees were sent out in letter?
a circular letter. But there is no corroborative evidence, and, next to the
insertion of speeches, the summarizing of a situation in a letter, supposed
to have been addressed by one party to the other, was the favourite
method of the writers of the period. Like many of the speeches in Acts
this letter recapitulates what has been told in the narrative. This, and
also the fact that other writers of the time appear to invent letters much as
they do speeches for their heroes, suggest that this passage is Luke’s own
composition. The style seems to justify such an origin. On this point
Harnack and Weiss seem to have the better of the argument rather than
Zahn, who thinks the language points to the source here used by Luke.
(For the use of letters in ancient writers see Additional Note 32.) There-
fore, though the point does not admit of certainty, I am doubtful if the
text of Acts is that of the actual document.
More important is the question whether, apart from the epistolary
form, the ‘decrees’ really represent a rule which in the first century
claimed apostolic authority and was issued from Jerusalem.
Is there sufficient ground for believing in the existence of apostolic Apostolic
authority at this period? Loisy is the most incisive critic of this belief, *““"°"™Y-
and his researches into Acts have led him to think, and in turn are
coloured by the opinion, that ‘apostolic’ authority is a fiction of the
editor of Acts, unsupported by the source which he was using, and
without foundation in history. I think that Loisy is wrong on this
point, and that his and similar opinions are due to an erroneous inter-
pretation of the Pauline epistles.
In Galatians and in Corinthians Paul refers by implication to the
question of apostolic authority. He rejects with great vigour all claims
which involved his recognition of the superiority of the apostles in
Jerusalem, But the same epistles prove that he believed in apostolic
authority as such. His claim was not that the other apostles had no
power, but that he had as much as they had, and that his was not
derived from theirs. He also was in the habit of settling questions by
letters. Moreover, Galatians certainly shows that there was a party
which denied Paul’s apostolic authority, except as derived from
Jerusalem. Thus the epistles themselves prove that apostolic authority
was really claimed by some persons in the early Church, and that these
~
212 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
persons were in Jerusalem is equally clear. Whether they regarded ‘ the
Twelve’ or ‘ James’ as the chief holder of this authority is another question.
The extension in tradition of the ‘James’ theory is found in the
Clementines, and of the ‘ Twelve’ theory in the Epistola Apostolorwm and
in the Apostolic Constitutions and its sources, such as the Didache and the
Didascalia.
Thus apart from the actual form of the document, which may be
Lucan rather than historical, it is not improbable that a letter + was sent
—either at the time of the conference or at some other—by the Church
of Jerusalem to regulate the relations between Jewish and ‘ God-fearing’
Christians.
Note XVII. Paur’s ConTROVERSIES
By Kirsorr Lake
The work of a missionary implies controversy, and his preaching
necessarily takes the form of arguments with those whom he wishes to
convert. His message is always the same, but because the positions of his
hearers are different he is obliged to embark on different discussions.
To reconstruct Paul’s preaching and the controversies which arose
from it is the central theme of any book on Paul, but it belongs only to the
periphery of one on Acts, and is called for only to show how far, or how little,
Acts describes the essential facts. It must be remembered that Acts and
the Epistles are both imperfect from the point of view of the historian.
Acts is in the main a narrative of events, told not to convey information
as the historian understands it, but to create belief. It gives only a brief
summary of Paul’s preaching conveyed in the form of short speeches. The
Epistles are in the main controversy combined with exhortation, and assume
rather than describe the preaching which aroused opposition and called
them forth. That is why all attempts to construct a system of Pauline
doctrine—Paulinismus—from the Epistles is doomed to failure, and always
produces something of which there is no trace in the Christian literature of
the primitive Church, until perhaps? the time of Augustine, who with only
1 Prof. Burkitt thinks that Rev. ii. 24 ff. is a direct reference to the decrees,
This seems to me to claim toomuch. Ov Bddd\w é¢ duds dAdo Badpos xri. is not a
very strange way of saying ‘I put no burden upon you except being faithful to
the teaching you received.’ It means especially that they should avoid ‘Jezebel.’
It is of course true that the writer has previously said that ‘Jezebel’ had made
the faithful ropveica: kal eldwdd0uTa dayetv. But this, as Westcott and Hort
indicate, is a reference to Numbers xxv. 1 f. rather than to Acts xv. 20. It is
probably intended metaphorically ; for whatever the Jezebel-sect was it taught
Ta Bd0ea Zaravd, which sounds like a Gnostic cult. Still, if the point be pressed,
I should not object to seeing a possible reference to the decrees in this passage.
2 I do not think that Irenaeus is an exception. He is not an expounder of
Pauline but of Johannine Christology. But it might be argued that Marcionism
was an unsuccessful ‘ Paulinismus.’
XVII PAUL’S CONTROVERSIES 213
slight exaggeration might be called the first creator of ‘ Paulinismus,’ for
he first studied the Epistles as though they were a handbook of theology.
To some extent, therefore, any reconstruction of Pauline teaching and
controversies is fated to be subjective in method and doubtful in results,
but a comparison of Acts and the Epistles makes it plain that in his career
as a Christian missionary Paul was engaged in four great controversies.
It is impossible to fill in the details of any one of the four, but their outlines
can be sketched so as to throw light on the problem of the relative com-
pleteness or incompleteness of the picture of Paul given in Acts.
These four controversies were with the Jews, the Gentile heathen, the
Jewish Christians, and the Gentile Christians.
(i.) Paul’s Controversy with the Jews.—Before his conversion Paul had Controversy
been engaged in controversy with Christians. We know nothing about “!"’°"*
the details, but it is a reasonably safe surmise that it turned mainly on the
claims set up by the disciples in Jerusaleom—that Jesus had risen from the
dead and was the man appointed by God to come from heaven and be
the judge of the living and the dead at the great day of the Lord. He can
hardly have been much occupied in discussing the teaching of Jesus as to
the Law, for that seems to have played but little part in the teaching of the
disciples at this time. It is not even mentioned in Acts,' and there is no
reference to it in the Pauline epistles.
The vision on the road to Damascus meant that Paul reversed his
judgement on this question. Henceforth Jesus was to him assuredly the
Man who would come from heaven, and the Resurrection was the certain
fact which gave Paul this assurance. Therefore in this controversy Paul
simply changed sides. But it continued—Paul, now on the Christian side,
arguing in favour of the belief that Jesus had ‘risen, the Jews denying it.
It is probably true that to the Jews this belief in the Messiahship
of Jesus was not so important as the later developments of Hellenistic
Christianity. To them it doubtless mattered far less that a group of other-
wise reasonably orthodox Jews were under a delusion about Jesus, than that
Greek-speaking Jews such as Paul should inculcate disregard of the Law
in the mind of those who might otherwise have been converts. But it was
not so to Paul. To him the Resurrection was the necessary foundation
of his whole position, and he felt that those who admitted the possibility
of a resurrection ought to follow him. Thus as between Paul and the Jews
the vital point of controversy, at least in his eyes, was the Resurrection.
The Epistles give us no examples of Paul’s exposition of this position, The
though undoubtedly 1 Cor. xv. 3-9, the list of the appearances of Jesus rae
after the Resurrection, may be safely taken as a specimen of his argument.
It is true that in 1 Corinthians it is used against Gentiles, not Jews, but that
is because, in doubting the resurrection of Christians as the appointed
method of immortality, the Corinthians compelled the repetition of an
argument which had once convinced them though it had not convinced
the Jews. There are many problems involved in this passage—what, for
instance, is the proof from the Old Testament of a resurrection on the third
1 In the case of Stephen the Temple not the Law is central.
Acts xxiii.
6.
214 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
day (1 Cor. xv. 4), and why does the list of the appearances of the risen
Jesus differ so greatly from that in the gospels ?—but it is at least clear that
in Paul’s controversy about the Resurrection his main arguments were (a)
the appearances of the risen Jesus, (b) the evidence of prophecy. The
absence of any reference to the story of the ‘ empty tomb’ as told in the
gospels is remarkable. It is difficult to think that Paul had never heard it ;
possibly he felt that the failure of the women to find the body of the Lord
was unimportant. (See K. Lake, The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection
of Jesus Christ, pp. 190 ff., and P. Gardner-Smith, The Narratives of the
Resurrection, pp. 10 ff.)
In Acts the argument is given at some length in the speech to Agrippa IT.
in xxvi. 2-23, and in the speech on the steps in xxii. 1-21, and more briefly
in the speech, if it can be so called, to the Sanhedrin in xxiii. 6. In the
two longer accounts the whole emphasis of the argument is on the personal
experience of Paul which proved to him the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus.
The shorter account is often rejected as unhistorical, but probably without
sufficient reason (cf. Vol. II. pp. 295 f.).
According to it Paul, finding himself in a dangerous position, created a
diversion in his favour by calling out “‘ I am a Pharisee, a son of a Pharisee.
I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead.”’ That Paul said
this is impugned on three counts: (a) it was no answer to thecharge brought
against him; (b) it was untrue that he was tried for this reason ; (c) he
had no right to say that he was a Pharisee.
(a) It is indeed true that this was no legal defence to the accusation
brought against him. To the accusation ‘ You brought foreigners into the
Temple’ it is no answer to say ‘I believe in a resurrection.’ But neither
- was Stephen’s speech an answer to the accusation brought against him, and,
as was pointed out on p. 70, it is usual for reformers when arrested not to
answer the charge, but to make a speech in favour of the reform they desire.
Paul’s speech is psychologically correct, and therefore not historically im-
probable.
(b) Similarly there is no real force in the contention that it was untrue
for Paul to say that he was on trial ‘for the hope and resurrection of the
dead.’ Technically and from the Jewish point of view this had nothing to
do with it, but from Paul’s—and in considering the accuracy of the narrative
nothing else matters—this was the whole question. If he had not believed
that his preaching about Jesus was justified by the Pharisaic doctrine of a
resurrection he would never have been on trial. Everything else was to
him entirely secondary. Doubtless neither side could understand the other,
and the Sanhedrin would have maintained that it had no official interest
in Paul’s belief that Jesus was risen, provided he kept his Gentile friends
out of the Temple. But Paul, in a spirit foreign to that of the lawyers,
but well known to all leaders of forlorn hopes, insisted that the question
of the Resurrection was central. The narrative on this point, at all events,
is entirely convincing.
(c) It is, however, urged that nothing can justify Paul for claiming to be
a Pharisee. Why not? He believed, probably, that he was almost the only
true Pharisee, because he alone drew the true conclusions from Pharisaic
XVII PAUL’S CONTROVERSIES 215
belief. Had he succeeded in persuading the Jews that he was right, every-
one would now hold the same position and claim that Pauline doctrine was
the natural development of Pharisaism. He merely did what all reformers
have done before and since, he threw back the picture of what he-desired
on to the institution in which he had been brought up, and claimed that
that picture was the reality. Whether Paul was right or wrong in the
abstract is an academic question. The point at issue is whether it is
conceivable that he claimed to be a Pharisee, and on this point a com-
parison with the acts of other reformers and all psychological probability
support the story in Acts, and refute the critics who regard this episode
as unhistorical.
Besides this argument with the Jews, which was the reversal of that The Law.
which he had carried on against the Christians before his conversion,
Paul had also a long-drawn-out argument as to the validity of the Law.
It is a question for the exegete of the Epistles to decide whether the
large amount of evidence contained in Romans and Galatians as to
Paul’s arguments belongs really to his controversy with the Jews or to
that with Jewish Christians.1 It is, however, quite certain that the
question of the Law must have constantly arisen in discussions between
Paul and the Jews, and the arguments in the Epistles are undoubtedly
those which he used against Jewish opponents, whether in the Synagogue
or in the Church.
Paul did not believe that the Law was in any way whatever binding
on Gentile Christians. This conclusion is not modified in the least,
1 There has been a steady change of opinion on this subject during the last
hundred years. The Tibingen school held that there was a mission of Jewish
Christians which everywhere opposed Paul, insisting on circumcision and the
observance of the Law. It thought that a majority of Christians in the Roman
Empire were Jewish by origin and that Jewish Christianity was one of the
most important factors in the early Church. Later Weizsicker modified this
theory, and supported the view that even in Rome and Galatia Gentile Christians
may have been the majority. W. Liitgert in a series of monographs went
further in minimizing the extent of Jewish Christianity. I followed him, so
far as Corinth was concerned, in my Harlier Epistles of St. Paul, and recently
J. H. Ropes has contributed in The Singular Problem of the Epistle to the
Galatians a powerful argument against the existence of Jewish Christians or
of a Jewish Christian mission in Galatia.
Ropes holds that Jewish Christians, in the sense in which the word is usually
employed, were never more than a rare phenomenon except in Palestine.
Elsewhere the Christian Church was almost wholly made up of converted
‘God-fearers’ who joined the Church rather than the Synagogue. The con-
troversies internal to the Church were everywhere those of ‘ Gentile Christianity’
as illustrated by the Epistles to the Corinthians. So far as Romans and
Galatians deal with the Law it is not because there was a Jewish-Christian
mission, in rivalry to Paul, but because Paul wished to protect his converts
from the efforts of Jewish teachers to persuade them to come over to the true
Mother Church—the Synagogue—and accept whole-heartedly all the teaching
of the Old Testament on which Paul himself relied for the proof of so much of
his teaching.
216 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
because he strongly urged in practice the same conduct as that produced
by obedience to the Law. It was the fruit of the Spirit, not the work
of the Law, and his central message in Galatians and Romans is that
righteousness is obtained by a remodelling of man’s nature, brought
about by faith on the part of man, and by the Spirit given by the
favour (xdpis) of God. There are many details which are doubtful,
especially the relation of this change of nature to baptism. Did Paul
think that the Spirit was conveyed in baptism, or, in other words, that
baptism was the form chosen by God to embody his favour? I think
that he did, though the matter is doubtful, and probably incapable of
proof, but I am sure that many of Paul’s converts thought so. But
the really important point has often been overlooked in the heat of
controversy about the relation between baptism and faith. Whether
baptism was held to be the necessary form of the divine act of favour
bestowing the Spirit may be left an open question, nor is it necessary to
have a final definition of ‘righteousness’ or of ‘faith. The central
point is that Paul clearly thought that a real supernatural change was
needed and was effected. That surely is Greek, not Jewish. The
Jewish position is that when the sinner repents and changes his ways he
is acceptable to God. He is not changed, but his choice and his conduct
are. The converted Christian in Pauline theology is a ‘new creature.’
Like the Fourth Gospel Paul holds that we ‘become’ children of God.
The contrast is between this ‘becoming a child of God’—whether by
faith alone or by faith and baptism is immaterial—and Jewish teaching,
typified in Christian literature by the parable of the Prodigal Son, in
which the Prodigal is always a Son, even though a foolish one. In this
respect the doctrine of Sonship in early Christianity moves, as it were,
on opposite lines with regard to Christ and with regard to Christians.
Its tendency is to become less ‘adoptionist’ with regard to Christ, but to
become more so with regard to Christians. The Prodigal was not an
‘adopted’ son, but Paul’s converts were.
In the Pauline scheme of thought there is no room for any ‘ Law,’
presented as a requirement of conduct necessary to salvation. Salvation
to him is the gift of God, not the result of right conduct. Or, to put the
same thing a little differently, right conduct is the result not the cause
of salvation.
In opposition to the Jews Paul maintained that the Law was not
valid since the Messiah had come, and that circumcision was therefore
not necessary for converts—it was an institution of the past—and, though
Paul never states the point, it cannot have been necessary in his opinion
for the children of Jewish Christians, for if such children were circumcised
they were ipso facto under the Law.
There is some evidence, though not very much, which goes to show
that in the first century certain Jews held that when the Messiah came the
Law would cease. But that was not and never has been orthodox Jewish
teaching. Paul, however, held this view (had he done so before his con-
version ?) and used it to support the contention that the Law, which had
been promulgated because of transgressions, was now abrogated.
XVII PAUL’S CONTROVERSIES 217
Such is the contention of the Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians.!
It must have been a prominent part of Paul’s teaching, yet it is not
mentioned in Acts. Why not? The simplest though not entirely satis-
factory explanation is that in the Lucan circle the question of the Law
had been settled, and it was not necessary to discuss it. This theory is
obviously easier to accept if it be held that the writer of Acts was not a
companion of Paul and had never read the Pauline epistles.
What other views are known to have existed on this subject ? It is the Law in
simplest to start with the position ultimately adopted in the Church. pe beac
This is set forth in the Didascalia, and through the Apostolic Constitu-
tions, which incorporated the Didascalia in themselves, passed into the
general body of Christian doctrine. It held that the Law is binding on
Christians, but the Law is only that part of Exodus which precedes the
worshipping of the golden calf in Exod. xxxii. All that followed was not
Law but Sevrépwots, Secundatio, ‘secondary matter’ or Mishna, which was
inflicted on Jews and on Jews only in punishment for their sin in worship-
ping the golden calf. It was therefore not binding on any except Jews.
In this way the ceremonial law of Leviticus was excluded, though if the
generation of the Didascalia had been consistent it would have noted that
circumcision was included. The truth, of course, is that this treatment of
the subject is merely an artificial explanation devised in order to justify
an established situation, rather than the intellectual conviction which
produced that situation.
At a period a little earlier than that of the Didascalia the Church had Marcion.
to face the contention of Marcion that the Law was to be disregarded
because it was not the work of the God of the Christians but of an inferior
Demiurge, who was responsible for the tragedy of creation. Marcion
maintained that he was the true interpreter of Paul, and in one sense he
was certainly nearer to Paul than was the Didascalia. Paul knew nothing
of any distinction between Law and Secundatio any more than he did of
a distinction between moral and ceremonial law.
Paul’s view of the Old Testament did indeed make a division in the Paul and
Old Testament, perhaps as little tenable in the end as the distinction °°"
between mora] and ceremonial law, but somewhat less subjective. He
distinguished between the Promises and the Law. The Promises had been
made to Abraham, were universal in scope, and pointed to the coming of the
Messiah, Jesus. The Law was temporary, was given because of transgres-
sion and as a means of education until the Promise was fulfilled. It then
ceased. It should be noted that this line of thought applies only to the
Torah—the Pentateuch. The Prophets were not identified by Paul—or
1 The most difficult problem in these epistles scarcely concerns us here, but
in fairness to Judaism it calls for mention. Paul undoubtedly argues that
Judaism expects men to keep the whole Law without failure. Otherwise they
are accursed and doomed to death (see Rom. iii. 20, vii. 10; Gal. iii. 11).
Judaism never said or thought this. That the best of men often err was not
unknown to Israel; but repentance was always able to restore the sinner.
See Vol. I. pp. 53 ff. Why then does Paul speak as he does? Is it mere
controversy, based on rabbinic exegesis? It is a very difficult question.
Barnabas.
Controversy
with the
Heathen.
218 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
by any other Jew—with the Law or with the Promise. The chief import-
ance of prophecy was to foretell the future. The prophet in his lifetime
was the messenger of God, exhorting and warning the people, and so far as
these exhortations referred to permanent conditions they were of universal
importance, but the main significance of the prophetic writings to Paul
and all others of his and succeeding generations was to foretell the future,
so that when the event happened it could be recognized as fulfilment.
(See Is. xlviii. 3-8, and cf. the treatment in Justin Martyr, Apolog. i. 21 ff.)
Thus Paul’s position was the rejection of the whole Law as such—the
Decalogue just as much as the Law of leprosy, partly because he believed
that with the coming of the Messiah the whole had been abrogated, partly
no doubt because he was temperamentally opposed to that form of life
which endeavours to obtain ‘ rightness’ by establishing a code of conduct.
Therefore he was quite as ready as Marcion to abandon the Law. Both
Paul and Marcion held that the Law was such that it could not be
fulfilled ; in that sense salvation was impossible through the Law. But
Paul explained this as due partly to the purpose for which the Law had
been given, partly to the defect of human nature, corrupted by the
transgression of Adam. Marcion explained it as due to the imperfect
intelligence of the Demiurge. (See Harnack, Marcion, and cf. especially
the chapter on Marcion in F. C. Burkitt’s The Gospel History and its
Transmission.)
Another way of dealing with the difficulty of the Law, so as to accept
the Old Testament as inspired scripture without observing the Law, was
that of ‘ Barnabas,’ who applied the method of allegorical interpretation
to the Law, so that, for instance, the command not to eat pork meant to
avoid the society of swine-like men. This system has always been used to
some extent by commentators on ‘sacred’ books, whether Jewish, Christian,
or heathen, but few ever went so far as ‘ Barnabas,’ who maintained that
the literal interpretation was the invention of the devil.
In these ways Christianity dealt with the question of the Law. Paul’s
view was not accepted in the sense in which he had meant it, and the
distinction between Law and Promise gave place to that between ‘ Law’
and ‘ Secundatio.’ The reason for this is not far to seek. In spite of Paul,
‘ Law ’ in the sense of a code of conduct is a necessity for an institutionally
organized society. The real objection to the Jewish Law was that it was an
antiquated and impossible code which the Gentile world could not and
would not accept. Circumcision especially was a Semitic custom repugnant
to the Greek or Roman mind. But the Church could not exist without a
law. Even Paul himself was obliged to lay down rules which formed an
embryonic law. Before long a Christian law was formulated, using the
‘Law,’ omitting the ‘Secundatio,’ and adding such additional precepts as
seemed necessary. It never quite gained the position of the Jewish Law,
but in the Middle Ages came very near it.
(ii.) Paul’s Controversy with the Heathen.—As soon as Paul became a
missionary to the heathen rather than to the Jews, a different controversy
began. Of it we have no direct examples in his epistles, and relatively
xv PAUL’S CONTROVERSIES 219
few incidental references to it. The earliest is perhaps the summary given
in 1 Thess. i. 9 f. where Paul claims that he succeeded in persuading the
Thessalonians to “‘ turn to God from idols, to serve a living and real God,
and to wait for his son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—
Jesus who rescues us from the wrath to come.” Obviously, however, this
success was not reached without controversy, and his enforced departure
from Thessalonica shows that he roused strong opposition. It is of course
impossible to reconstruct the details of his arguments, but their general
outline can probably be recovered from Rom. i. 18-32, 1 Cor. i. 18-ii. 10,
Acts xiv. 15-17 (Lystra), and xvii. 22-31 (Athens). They consisted of a
‘theory of history’ presented so as to support the eschatological message
of impending judgement and possible salvation.
The first part of this theory is that, though there was evidence of the
true God in nature, the Gentiles had refused to pay attention to it. The
argument is the same as that developed in the second century by the
Apologists, except that there is no trace of the doctrine, typical of the
Apologists, that the Philosophers of Greece were analogous in the Greek
world to the Prophets in the Hebrew, and there is a noticeable absence of
the doctrine, even more typical of the Apologists, that the corruption of
mankind was due to demons, though Paul undoubtedly believed in the
maleficent working of devils and demons. (See O. Everling, Die pauwlinische
Angelologie und Démonologie, and Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des
Paulus.)
The second part of the Pauline ‘theory of history’ was that God had
exhausted his patience with men, and would speedily judge and punish
them. Safety, however, was offered to those who accepted Jesus as their
saviour, appointed by God for this purpose of salvation, and also the pre-
destined agent of God at the coming judgement (cf. Rom. ii. 16; Acts
xvii. 31).
The main differences between the Epistles and Acts are: (a) the Epistles
tend to emphasize the work of Jesus as saviour, Acts as judge.
(b) In the Epistles salvation is due to union with Jesus, which is also
represented as the possession of the Spirit ‘ which is the Lord,’ but in Acts
salvation is due to repentance and baptism which conferred the Spirit.
Both in the Epistles and in Acts the human deed necessary to accept the
Divine offer of salvation is called ‘faith,’ and those who thus accept it
are called of ructoi or of muatevovtes. On the other hand both in the
Epistles and in Acts salvation is also regarded as the free favour given
to those who had been predestined for it, but in neither does there appear
to be any real perception of the intellectual difficulty involved in the
attempt to accept simultaneously theories of salvation by human faith
and by divine predestination.
There are indeed other difficult questions involved, but they belong
rather to the interpretation of the Epistles, which are more obscure than
Acts. How far, for instance, did Paul identify the Spirit and the risen
Jesus ? What part did baptism play in his scheme in relation to the gift
of the Spirit ? Was it a sacrament, as it was in Johannine and Catholic
Christianity, or a symbolic ceremony, as it was in Judaism which had no
Controversy
with Jewish
Christians.
220 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
true sacraments ? Possibly there is not sufficient evidence in the Epistles
to justify any answer to these questions, which will nevertheless prove
fundamental in any attempt to reconstruct fully Paul’s preaching to the
Gentiles and the controversy which it aroused. For the commentator on
Acts it is sufficient to note that they exist, for so far as Acts is concerned
it cannot be doubted that the Spirit was central in the writer’s doctrine of
the church, and that he held it to be given normally either by baptism or
by the laying on of hands.
(c) In the Epistles the salvation of men is very clearly dependent on
the death of Jesus, which was an atoning sacrifice. In Acts, however, there
is at most only one reference to this doctrine—in xx. 28 ‘ the church of the
Lord which he rescued (repreroujoato) by the blood of his own one’
(see note ad loc.), and its absence is one of the most remarkable features of
Acts. The death of Jesus has in Acts, except in xx. 28, no soteriological
significance ; it is merely a Jewish crime. In Pauline doctrine the death
of Jesus redeems men from sin; this much is clear, even though it may
be hard to say whether men make use of this redemption by faith, or by
baptism, or by both, and whether they do so by an act of their own free
will or by the grace of God given to the elect. But in Acts this is not
mentioned ; in strictly Jewish fashion repentance—with its corollary,
faith—is all that is necessary.
(iii.) Paul’s Controversy with the Jewish Christians.—Both Acts and the
Epistles give more information on thissubject than they do on the preaching
of Paul either to Jews or to Gentiles. From Acts xv. it is clear that there
was a party in Jerusalem which insisted on the observance of the Jewish
Law. This party was the ancestor of the Nazarenes or Ebionites who
continued to exist on a small scale until the end of the fourth century.
Acts taken by itself would not suggest that this party carried on a vigorous
missionary propaganda throughout the Roman Empire, but the Epistles
to the Romans and to the Galatians are usually interpreted to show that
they did so.*
There are many problems with regard to the Jewish-Christian party
which are likely to remain permanently obscure. What, for instance, was its
relation to James ? And what value has the Pseudo-Clementine literature
for the reconstruction of its teaching? But for the present purpose it is
sufficient to note that (a) it maintained the validity of the Law and insisted
on circumcision, but (b) regarded Jesus as the Messiah, though exactly in
what sense is open to argument.
Did they think of him as the Messiah of the Psalms of Solomon, the
Prince of the House of David, who would restore the Kingdom to Israel,
or as the Messiah of the Book of Enoch, who would appear at the end of
this world, to judge it, and to admit or to exclude from the Life of the
World to Come? Or did they, like the later Christians, combine both
1 In view of Prof. Ropes’s book, The Singular Problem of the Epistle to the
Galatians, this interpretation is open to grave doubt. In any case, however,
there certainly were Jewish Christians in Palestine, though there may have
been extremely few elsewhere.
Xvi PAUL’S CONTROVERSIES 221
expectations? We do not know, and probably cannot know, as there is
no sufficient extant evidence.*
An extremely difficult and important question is the relation of James The position
to this party. of James.
His position seems clear up toa point. His representatives in Antioch
undoubtedly insisted on the Jewish manner of life, which must at least
mean observance by Gentile converts of whatever rules were in force at
that time for the regulation of social relationship between Jews and God-
fearers. All the evidence seems to suggest that these rules are embodied
in the apostolic decrees, There is, as has been said, no evidence at all
that Paul ever accepted them as part of the Christian way of life, but
there is every reason to suppose that they were current in circles where
Jewish Christians were found. In other words, there is no reason to
suppose that Acts is wholly fiction.
Did James go further, and insist on circumcision for converts ?
Possibly he did. But the possibility cannot be excluded that James
and others believed that the life of the ‘ World to Come ’—though perhaps
not the ‘Days of the Messiah ’—would be open to pious God-fearers. That
this view was held in some circles seems clear from the Sibylline Oracles,?
but before opinion can be clarified on this point we need more knowledge
on two points: (a2) How far did Jews in the first century admit that
pious God-fearers had a share in the ‘ World to Come’? and (b) How far
did the first Christian eschatology contemplate the ‘Days of the
Messiah’ as well as the ‘World to Come’? On the second point it is
possible that Jesus contemplated only the speedy coming of the ‘ World
to Come,’ and that Paul and others (notably the Johannine Apocalypse)
introduced a Christian version of the ‘ Days of the Messiah,’ which was
not part of the teaching of Jesus. (See Vol. I. pp. 267 ff. and 362 ff.)
If this be so, quite conceivably the position of James was that the
way of life was open to those heathen who became God-fearers, but that
they must obey the rules laid down for God-fearers. Whether this be
so or not, it would certainly seem probable that this was the position
adopted by Peter and Barnabas under pressure from James, but refused
by Paul. In favour of the view that James did not go further than this,
and did not insist on circumcision, is Paul’s clear statement in Gal. ii. 9
that James accepted Paul’s gospel to the Gentiles, which certainly did
not include circumcision. Against it is the statement in Acts xv. 1 that
trouble was caused in Antioch by those who came down from Judaea
1 It has sometimes been thought that we learn something about it from
the Pseudo-Clementine literature. This is improbable. The Pseudo-Clementine
literature is a work which resembles many more recent productions in being
an attempt to reconstruct Apostolic Christianity so as to edify a later genera-
tion. Such books are neither wholly history nor wholly fiction, they are a
separate genre, but the historian of the early Church does well to make little
use of them. The Pseudo-Clementines throw an immensely valuable light on
the thought of the fourth or possibly third century, but little or none on the
history of the first.
2 See p. 209.
Controversy
with Gentile
Christians.
222 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY Now's
and insisted on circumcision. It is, however, not stated that these
Judaeans were sent by James.
A possible view which seems to me to have general probability in its
favour, though it cannot be demonstrated by evidence, is that James was
willing, as Galatians says, to condone Paul’s practice of not circumcising
his converts. He did not feel that this excluded them from the World
to Come, and if the World to Come was all that interested these Goyim,
and Paul was content to have it so, well and good, But he, James, the
brother of the Lord, and a son of David according to the flesh, did not
forget the customs, and desired to remain faithful to the Law of God,
given to His People. He would have been deeply shocked at the idea
that Jews, however much they believed that Jesus was the Messiah,
should give up circumcision, just as Protestants who have abandoned
all belief in baptismal regeneration would nevertheless be shocked at any
suggestion that they should give up baptizing their children.
Some such view as this would seem to do most justice to the three
important pieces of evidence which we possess. (i.) Paul’s statement
that James accepted his preaching to the Gentiles. (ii.) The picture of
James in Acts xxi. 17 ff. (iii.) The undoubted fact that James lived in
Jerusalem until almost the beginning of the Jewish-Roman war, and was
accepted by most of the Jews as a pious and devout worshipper in the
Temple.
The position of Peter is also far from clear. It seems certain from
Acts as well as from Galatians that he did not insist on the circumcision,
but both he and Barnabas obviously made to James some concession
which Paul refused. It is clear from Galatians that this concession
concerned the social intercourse of Christians or Gentile Christians with
Jews or with Jewish Christians. It is a fair guess that the decrees, or
the attitude which they embody, belong to this episode, but the details
must necessarily remain obscure. (See Additional Note 16.)
(iv.) The Controversy with Gentile Christians.—The last controversy in
which Paul was concerned was with Greek-speaking Christians who were
for the most part converts from heathenism, and in any case were permeated
with the religious preconceptions of the Greco-oriental world. It will
probably always be doubtful how far Paul himself accepted or had inherited
those preconceptions, but the Epistles to the Corinthians show that he was
engaged during his stay at Ephesus in a violent controversy which turned
mainly on the relation between them and the Christian message which his
converts had accepted.
Stated briefly the situation was this: the Corinthians, who are doubt-
less to be taken as typical of Gentile Christians, believed in general that
Christianity gave them the Spirit of God which so changed their nature
that they became—like divine beings—immortal. It is unnecessary here to
discuss the difficulties which arise if we ask the three questions which con-
stitute the ‘ Pauline problem ’ in relation to Gentile Christianity—({i.) How
far did they or Paul think that this Spirit was the result of baptism ?
(ii.) Did they or Paul think that without the Spirit life ended with the
xvit PAUL’S CONTROVERSIES 223
grave ? (iii.) How far did they or Paul identify or distinguish Jesus and
the Spirit? But whatever may be the answer to these problems it is
certain that controversy arose when, especially in Corinth, the converts
began to discuss the relation between the life of the Spirit and Gentile
concepts of sacrificial meals, the problems of marriage and sex, the bearing
of the life of the Spirit on personal conduct, and the connexion between the
immortality given by the Spirit and the belief in a resurrection.
On all these points Paul had definite opinions, but the most important
was his insistence that the life of the Spirit re-enforced and did not cancel
the claims of a strict Jewish code of morality, and that the gift of im-
mortality did not exclude the Jewish belief in a resurrection.
Though the details are obscure it is clear from the Epistles to the
Corinthians that the controversy on these topics was extremely bitter, and
that Paul himself was at times doubtful whether he would succeed in
carrying his Gentile converts with him. But in the end he won. He failed
in his controversy with the Jews ; probably he failed, at least partially, in
his controversy with Jewish Christians, but. he triumphed in this, his final
controversy, with Gentile Christians. It was this triumph which secured
him his position in the Church—which is Gentile Christianity—and
preserved his epistles as Holy Scripture, for it is to be remembered that
though for later ages Paul lived because of his epistles, for the early
Church the epistles lived because of Paul.
Why is there not a single word about this controversy in Acts ?_ That Luke's
it is a reality, not a figment of historical imagination, is proved by the ‘!/e"°*
epistles. But Luke is absolutely silent on the whole matter, and if we
did not possess the epistles we should suppose that in the Apostolic age no
suggestion of quarrels ruffled the peace of Gentile Christianity. Whether
‘Luke’ was a companion of Paul or not he clearly had reliable information
as to Paul’s missionary career in Ephesus and Corinth. He cannot have
been ignorant of the controversy, and his silence is puzzling.
The only answer which we can give is that he desired to represent
the Apostolic Church as harassed by persecution from without, but never
disturbed by quarrels within. Even in chapter xv. there is no quarrel
on such issues. There was a momentary difference of opinion, but no
quarrel and no discussion among the leaders. The quarrel with Barnabas,
which in Galatians is doctrinal, is merely personal in Acts.
It is the same picture which Clement of Rome drew a little later, and
is copied in all the long series of pseudo-Apostolic writings. It is found
in the speech of Paul at Miletus, ‘‘ After I am gone [if that be the right
translation, see note ad loc.}, grievous wolves shall enter ”’—which implies
that they had not done so as yet. It is only contradicted, but then in
the most convincing and absolute manner, by the epistles of Paul himself,
which show that turbulent discussion, not ‘ deep peace,’ was as character-
istic of the Gentile Church in its infancy as in its maturity.
Paul’s route.
The first
journey.
Perga.
Pisidian
Antioch.
224 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
Nore XVIII. Pavt’s Route in Asta Minor
By Krirsorp Lake
The route followed by Paul on his missionary journeys generally offers
no special difficulty ; the places in Europe which he visited—Neapolis,
Philippi, Amphipolis, Apollonia, Thessalonica, Beroea, Athens, Corinth—
are all well known, and, except for the journey from Beroea to Athens
(see note, Vol. IV. pp. 207 f.), the road which he probably took is quite
obvious. This, however, is only partly true of his journeys in Asia Minor.
Here the towns mentioned can indeed be generally identified, but when he
refers to districts it is not always certain what Luke means, and the route
which Paul followed is obscure.
The purpose of this note, therefore, is to discuss the difficulties which
are found if Paul be followed on his journeys across Asia Minor.
Chapters xiii. and xiv. cover the first journey. The localities on Paul’s
way out are Perga, Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and on his
return he retraced his steps except that Attalia took the place of Perga.
1. Perga—Antioch—Iconium
There is no problem connected with Perga except the doubt whether
Acts necessarily means that the party landed at Perga. (See note on
xiii. 13.) The text merely states that having started from Paphos, Paul and
his party came to Perga. This would not exclude the possibility that they
actually landed at Attalia. Ramsay (Church in the Roman Empire, p. 16)
admits that at present Perga could not be reached by a sea-going boat,
and assumes that the channel up the Cestrus was kept open by dredging.
It is of course true that this was done in Ephesus, but there is no evidence
that it was at Perga, and according to Strabo (p. 667) Perga was not even
on the river, but five miles distant. Therefore it is quite doubtful whether
the party actually landed at Perga.
From Perga they went to Antioch of Pisidia. Probably one reason
for going to Antioch was its large Jewish colony (Josephus, Anéiq. xii. 3. 1).
It was the chief city in the southern part of the province of Galatia, and
there was doubtless a well-recognized road between it and Perga, but the
course of this road is by no means certain. The most probable theory
seems to be that of Ramsay (Church in the Roman Empire, p. 19). Accord-
ing to this it went up one of the eastern branches of the Cestrus to Adada,
which is now called Karabavlo. Ramsay thinks that Paul was the patron
saint of the city, and that the church, of which some ruins remain, was
dedicated to him. Churches dedicated to St. Paul are not uncommon, and
this may account for the modern name of the town; the only objection is
that as a rule in local Turkish corruptions of the name of a Greek saint
the ‘ saint’ is usually represented by Ayo (aytos).
From Adada the road to Antioch, according to Ramsay, is uncertain.
There is a path along the south-eastern end of Lake Egerdir, the ancient
Limnai, but Ramsay thinks that an easier road would have been one which
xv PAUL’S ROUTE IN ASIA MINOR 225
turns to the east after leaving Adada and goes through the hills between
it and Lake Karalis.
From Antioch Paul went to Iconium. Here again further knowledge Iconium.
of the locality has changed opinion as to the way by which Paul is likely
to have gone from Antioch to Iconium. The chief feature of the country
is a great mountain ridge, known as the Sultan Dagh, the pass over which
is at least four thousand feet above Antioch. The main road from Ephesus
across Asia Minor to the Euphrates valley went immediately to the north
of this mountain, and for any traveller coming from Ephesus the natural
road would have been along this main artery of traffic as far as Laodicea,
from which a branch road went to Iconium. But although Antioch seems
to be quite close to this road, it is unfortunately separated from it by the
whole bulk of the Sultan Dagh, and to reach it would mean going over the
pass just mentioned and joining the main road at Philomelion.
It is therefore practically certain that he went along the Via Sebaste The Via
which was built for Augustus by his propraetor Cornutus Aquila in are
6 B.c. It went from Antioch through Selki, where the 44th and 45th
milestones have been found, and Yonuslar (the ancient Pappa), where a
milestone (the number is missing) is also extant. These milestones had
originally the general inscription Imperator Caesar Divi filius, Augustus,
Pontifex Maximus, Consul XI, Designatus XII, Imperator XV, Tribunicia
potestate XVIII, Viam Sebasten, curante Cornuto Aquila legato suo pro
praetore, fecit. After Pappa the road must have passed through the
Bagharzik Deré, and probably through Bulumia to Lystra, though
absolute evidence of this is not yet available.
This road is doubtless referred to in a passage in the extract from the
second-century Acta Pauli,? known as The Acts of Paul and Thecla (ii. 3).
It runs as follows :
1 See H. S. Cronin, ‘ First Report of a Journey in Pisidia,’ in the Journal of
Hellenic Studies, xxii. (1902), pp. 94 ff., esp. pp. 109 f.
2 The Acts of Paul from which the commonly known Acts of Paul and
Thecla was taken is one of the five ‘ Leucian’ Acts used by the Manichaeans
in Africa. The Acts of Paul at all events was also recognized as scripture by
the orthodox in Africa, and was quoted as such by Augustine in his controversy
with Felix the Manichee. Tertullian, however, says that it had been recently
composed by a presbyter in Asia Minor in a mistaken attempt to glorify the
Apostle. The original text of the complete Acta is lost, but large parts of an
early Coptic version have been published by Carl Schmidt, and the same
scholar has recently announced the discovery of a large section of the Greek
text in a papyrus of the third century. There cannot be any doubt but that
the commonly current Acts of Paul and Thecla are an extract from this second-
century document. The possibility of course remains that the author of the
original book was making use of earlier sources, but there is no evidence of this.
When Ramsay wrote, Carl Schmidt’s discovery had not been made, and
Ramsay regarded the Acts of Paul and Thecla as an independent work. Out
of a large literature see especially Lipsius and Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum
Apocrypha, C. Schmidt, Die alien Petrusakten and Acta Pauli, M. R. James,
Apocryphal Acts, and ‘ Acta Iohannis’ in Texts and Studies.
VOL. V Q
Lystra.
226 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
Kai éropevero kata tiv BaotAuxhy 6d3v thv ért Atvorpay, Kat
elorijKker dmekdexdpevos avtov, Kal Tos éEpxopévovs eOedper Kata TV
phveow Titov. «tdev S& rdv IlatAov épxdpevov, avdpa puxpdv TH
peyeOe, pirdv tH Kepady, ayxdrov Tais Kvijpats, evextixdy, civodpuy,
puxpOs éerippwov, xapitos TAHpy’ mote pev yap éhaivero ws dvOpwros,
mote S& dyyéov rpdcwrov eter.
It cannot be doubted that the 685s Bac.AKy in this passage is the
Greek rendering of Via Sebaste. Why however should BactArKy) have
been substituted for the Greek word Sebaste? The guess may be
hazarded that the road was restored rather than built by Augustus, and
that Sebaste was an attempt to connect with Rome an older road going
back to Persian times or earlier. Augustus seems never to have
neglected an opportunity, however small, of diverting old names or old
customs into a closer connexion with Rome. The ‘ Royal road’ of
Herodotus is usually supposed to have gone through Ancyra, but W. M.
Calder seems to have proved conclusively that it really went through
Lycaonia. If so, the 663s BaovArKy of the Acta Pauli is a characteristic
survival of the ancient name of the great road which Augustus partly
restored and incorporated into his system.
2. Lystra—Derbe
Lystra is the modern Zoldera, on the northern bank of the Kopree
river, opposite to and about a mile from the village of Khatyn Serai.
That Zoldera is Lystra was first proved in 1885 by J. R. S. Sterrett,? who
found a Latin inscription :
DIVUM AUG(ustum)
coL(onia) IUL(ia) FE
LIX GEMINA
LUSTRA
CONSE
ORAVIT |
D(ecreto) D(ecurionum).
This inscription not improbably indicates that there was an Augustewm
at Lystra just as there was at Ancyra and Antioch, and the question
occurs inevitably whether this is not the same as the temple which Luke
describes as that of Zeus. At Ancyra the Augustewm seems to have been
outside the city, and in Lystra it may have been associated with the
Lycaonian cult which Luke identified with that of Zeus (see note on
xiv. 13).
The road to Lystra from Iconium is thus described by Sir W. M.
Ramsay,® who visited Khatyn Serai in 1882, but did not cross over to
1 Herodotus v. 52, and W. M. Calder, ‘The Royal Road in Herodotus,’ in
the Classical Review, xxxix. 1 (1925) pp. 7 ff.
2 The Wolfe Expedition to Asia Minor (vol. iii. of the Papers of the American
School of Classical Studies at Athens), 1888, Inscr. No, 242, p. 142.
3 The Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 47 f.
XVI PAUL’S ROUTE IN ASIA MINOR 227
Zoldera: “ Lystra is about six hours 8.8.W. from Iconium. The road passes
for a mile or more through the luxuriant gardens of the suburbs, and then
across the level plain, rising gently for twelve miles. Then it reaches a
range of hills, which stretch outwards in a south-easterly direction from
the mountainous country that bounds the vast Lycaonian plains on the
west and separates them from the great depression in which are situated
the two connected lakes Trogitis (Seidi Sheher) and Karalis (Bey Sheher,
the largest in Asia Minor). This range, which entails a further ascent
of 500 feet, diminishes in height towards the east, and sinks down to the
plain ten miles away. After crossing these hills, the road descends into
a valley, in breadth about a mile, down the centre of which flows a river
towards the south-east ; and on the southern bank of the river, about a
mile from the place where the road leaves the hills, stands the village of
Khatyn Serai, ‘ The Lady’s Mansion.’ The name dates no doubt from the
time of the Seljuk Sultans of Roum, when the village was an estate and
country residence of some sultana from Konia (as Iconium is now called).
Its elevation, about 3777 feet above the sea and 427 above Iconium, fits
it for a summer residence.”
The exact site of Derbe is not known; but at present the most probable Derbe.
suggestion is either that of J. R. S. Sterrett, who thinks that Derbe was
at Losta (or Zosta), or that of W. M. Ramsay, who thinks that it was
probably at Gudelissin. Ramsay thinks that the ruins at Losta are
merely stones which were brought from Gudelissin, which is about three
miles W.N.W. of Losta. Gudelissin has a large mound, of the kind some-
times described as Assyrian Tells, and referred to by Strabo as ‘ cities of
Semiramis’; doubtless its excavation would be interesting, and it may
be the site of Derbe. I admit, however, to the feeling, which apparently
Professor Sterrett shared, that Acts xiv. 20 implies (though admittedly it
does not state) that Paul did not stop anywhere between Lystra and Derbe.
Gudelissin is about 35 miles from Lystra, and could not be reached in one
day of ordinary travel. It would therefore not surprise me if Derbe were
ultimately found to have been rather nearer to Zoldera.
Derbe appears in Acts xiv. to have been the place where Paul turned
back and retraced his steps through Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch
to Perga, but on this occasion it is definitely stated that Attalia was the
actual port of departure for sailing to Syrian Antioch. It should be noted
that the inaccuracy of speaking of the first great city reached instead of
the actual port of arrival, which probably made Luke say Perga instead
of Attalia in xiii. 13, is here observable in the reference to Antioch, for of
course they really landed at Seleucia.
If E. Schwartz’s theory about Acts be accepted, these few verses, xiv. 21-26.
xiv. 21-26, are at least partly editorial, and put in to round out the
narrative (see pp. 201 ff. and 237 f.). It is not impossible, is even prob-
able, but it cannot be proved. If it be accepted, xv. 40 and probably
part of the context must also be editorial. According to this theory
Barnabas probably left Paul at Iconium and returned alone to Antioch,
while Paul went on as is described in xvi. 4 ff.
If, however, the text be followed as it stands, the Apostolic Council The Council.
xvi. 6.
The value of
the later
text.
228 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
described in chap. xv. comes between the first and second journeys, and
the second missionary journey began when Paul again left Antioch, after
quarrelling with Barnabas about Mark. The first part is only briefly
indicated. Paul appears to have gone to Derbe by land, so that he must
have gone through the Syrian Gates, crossing Cilicia to Tarsus, thence
through the Cilician Gates, and so along the northern side of the Taurus
through the kingdom of Antiochus to Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium.
So much is clear: the difficulty begins with xvi. 6.
The Greek of the Neutral text of this verse is 5:7 Oov dé tiv Ppvyiav
kal TaXdatixny xopav, KwAvbevtes id Tod dyiov rvetpatos AaAjRoat
Tov Adyov év TH’ Acia, EABdvTes 5é Kata THY Mvoiav éreipafov eis THY
BeOvviav ropevOjvar Kai ovk ciavev adrods Td mvedpa “Inood’ rap-
eXOdvres 5¢ tHv Muciav xaréBnoav cis Tpwdéda. The Western text is
the same except that it reads pndevi AaAjoat Tdv Adyov Tov Geod Ev TH
Acia, substitutes yevopevor for €XOdvres, and dueAGdvres for taped Odvres.
Obviously these changes are unimportant for interpretation, but the later
text read SveAOdvres for di7AOGov and inserted t7v before DaAarv«ijy
XWpPev.
To adopt either of these later readings would be a violation of all
recognized textual probability. A reading found in the later mss., but in
neither the Neutral nor Western text, has no claim to be considered. But
it is worth asking why these changes were made by the later scribes.
AteXOdvres for 1A Oov is doubtless due* to an attempt to understand
Paul’s route, and it is intimately connected with the insertion of tiv
before 'adatixijv xepav. The emendator clearly took Ppvyiav as a sub-
stantive, and held that it was distinct from the ‘ Galatian territory.’ But
to express this in Greek usually requires an article before .aAatuxny xépav.
The emendation is therefore evidence that in the fourth or fifth century
it was held that Paul travelled first through Phrygia, and then through
Galatia. When in Galatia he proposed to go into Asia, but could not,
and therefore went on until, kata tv Mvoiay, he tried to enter Bithynia.
This also proved impossible, so he went through Mysia to Troas. To the
scribe of the late text it seemed clear that the question of entry into Asia
arose after Paul was in Galatia. Therefore he changed 617A Gov to SueAGovtes,
and so bears witness that kwAvGevtes ought to be interpreted as describing
the state of things which led up to d:7A Gov. Similarly his preference for
tv L'adatixijv xwépav corroborates the opinion of modern grammarians
that the original phrase meant a single district: had it meant two districts
the article must have been repeated before Tadatixiyv ywparv.
Therefore, rejecting the late text, and accepting the judgement of
the late scribe as to the meaning of the original text, we must say that
kwAvbevres conditions du7Aov and that riv Ppvyiav cai Tadarixijy
xépav means two localities conceived as a single district.
1 There is a different account in the Acts of Barnabas, but it is probably
pure fiction. It confuses Antioch in Syria with Pisidian Antioch, and makes
Mark a servant of a priest of Zeus in Iconium. The text is published by Lipsius
and Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, ii. 2, pp. 292 ff.
2 See Vol. III. p. 152.
xvi PAUL’S ROUTE IN ASIA MINOR 229
Thus the conditions which must be met by any solution of the problem The
of Paul’s route between Lystra and Troas are the following : 2 ps
(i.) He wished to preach in ‘ Asia,’ but was unable to do so. problem.
(ii.) He therefore passed through tiv Ppvyiav cat Tadaruxiy xopav
until he was kata tv Muciav.
(iii.) He then tried to enter Bithynia but was unable, and so went
through Mysia to Troas.
The doubtful points, which make the solution difficult, are : br aoor’
(a) What is the meaning of ‘ Asia’ ? pp bs
(b) What spot is meant by xara tv Mvuoiav ?
(c) What is the meaning of tHv Ppvyiav kat Tadatixyy xopav ?
(a) Asia.—This is an elusive word which is used in several senses: _ Asia.
(i.) The continent of Asia, as distinct from Europe. This sense is
found in geographers, but clearly cannot be the one used by Luke.
(ii.) Asia with the adjective minor is also used by geographers in the
same sense as it is to-day, but is equally inappropriate here.
(iii.) Far more often, especially in official documents, Asia is used in
the sense of the Roman province; it is probably so used in 1 Peter i. 1.
But it must be remembered that Asia, like the other provinces, varied in
size from time to time. The original ‘ Asia’ was Mysia and Lydia, and
perhaps Caria. Phrygia was added in 116 B.c., but in 80 B.c. the Dioceses
of Synnada, Apameia, and Laodicea were given to Cilicia, only to be
restored to Asia in 49 B.c.
(iv.) It is also used in a narrower! sense of the Greek cities of the
Aegean coast (using coast in a liberal sense) with the territory adjacent to
them. This is probably the older use, as not only the provinces of the
Empire but also the kingdoms they replaced were named a parte potiort.
An example of this older and narrower use of ‘ Asia’ is given by the
‘Seven Churches of Asia’ of the Apocalypse. It means the Greek cities
of the district of which the line Ephesus—Smyrna—Pergamos is the
western limit, and Laodicea the eastern. Possibly the other cities of the
Lycus valley, Colossae and Hierapolis, and even Apameia, were sometimes
included, but Strabo ? includes them in Phrygia. Of course Strabo knew
1 “ Asia is a term about which it is very difficult to decide. The Roman
province Asia had been formed in 133 B.c., and the name seems to have soon
come into popular use, because there was no other term to denote the Aegean
coast lands. But during the first century before Christ the province was greatly
increased in size, and it is very difficult to determine after this time whether
the name Asia is used in the popular sense of the Aegean coast lands or denotes
the entire Roman province; in short, whether it includes Phrygia or not.’
(W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 150.)
2 Very probably Apameia was just as Greek-speaking among the upper
classes in the city as was Ephesus, but the surrounding population was definitely
Phrygian. Strabo goes even further and includes the cities of the Lycus in
Phrygia, but says that Apameia was the greatest market of Asia 77s idiws Neyouévns
after Ephesus. I do not feel sure whether Asia here means the restricted district
Mysia.
230 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
that all this district was in the province of Asia, but as a geographer he
regards west-central Asia as Phrygia, and distinguishes it from Galatia
and Mysia. So far as Acts is concerned the most important evidence is
given in Acts ii. 9 f., where the component parts, or some of them, of Asia
Minor are described as Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia.
Obviously Asia is here used in a sense which excluded Phrygia.
In which of these senses is ‘ Asia’ used in Acts xvi. 6? The choice
is clearly between the third and the fourth. It either means the province
Asia, or Asia in the narrower sense of Acts ii. and the Apocalypse.
In favour of the first possibility is the place where Paul was at
the time. Acts xvi. 5 brings him to Lystra or Iconium. From Iconium
it was only a step to the frontier of the Roman province of Asia, but it
was a long way to the ‘ Asian’ cities in the narrower sense. The natural
meaning of 67AOov «TA. in xvi. 6 is that they went through Phrygia,
because they had been prevented from preaching in Asia, which implies
that Asia was near at hand. On the other hand, none of the other words
used in the passage are the names of Roman provinces, and if Asia really
means ‘ Greek cities,’ it may have been within Paul’s purpose even when
he wasinIconium. Of course,on Ramsay’s view, that kwAvOerres is merely
an equivalent of kat éxwAv@noav, Asia in the narrower sense is more
probable ; but grammar seems to render his theory unlikely.
(b) xara tHv Muciav. Strabo’s accurate account leaves no doubt as
to the general position of Mysia. It was the district from the shores of
Troy to the eastern slopes of the Mysian Olympus. Thus when Paul
is described as being kata tv Mvoiav when he considered going to
Bithynia, the meaning is plain. He was not far south of the Bithynian
boundary and not far east of the Mysian Olympus. If it were necessary
to choose a single town, Dorylaion or Kotiaion would admirably fit all
the conditions of the problem; these towns are in Phrygia, but close to
country inhabited by Galatians.*
It will be seen that this spot, as well as the whole of Mysia, was well
inside the frontiers of the province of Asia, and also that there is no spot
in the province of Galatia which could fairly be described as xara tyv
under discussion, or the province, or the continent, but I think that it probably
means the continent. Perhaps the point really is that Asia was the name
used by Greeks to describe the eastern shore of the Aegean. The inhabitants
of various districts called their lands after their own names, but the Greeks,
who could not use their own name, because it belonged to the country from
which they had emigrated, called it all Asia. Asia is a Greek name, not used
by Lydians or Phrygians or Carians or others, but only by Greeks and Romans.
Hence the description which the xowév of Asia gives of itself is of éml ris "Actas
"EdAnves. Therefore also it was possible for such a city as Laodicea, with a
mixed population, to belong to the xowdr rijs ’Acias, and so to be spoken of
at times as in Asia, at other times as in Phrygia.
1 Thus the whole district from Iconium to Dorylaion was one in which
Phrygians and Galatians must have been closely intermingled. It was Phrygia,
but it was also Galatian country.
xvi PAUL’S ROUTE IN ASIA MINOR 231
Mvoiav. Nevertheless it seems to me clear that the writer did not think
that this journey, ending near Dorylaion, was in Asia in his sense of the
word. It is indeed possible to say—as Ramsay does—that Paul was only
prevented from preaching in Asia, not from travelling across it, but the
prima facie force of the words used is that ‘ Asia ’ was one district, ‘ Phrygia
and Galatian territory’ another, Mysia a third, and Bithynia a fourth.
Paul originally wished to go to Asia, but could not preach there, so he
went through ‘ Phrygia and Galatian country,’ and when he could not go
straight on into Bithynia he turned to the west and went to Troas.
(c) The meaning of tiv Ppvyiav kai Tadarixnv xdpav. This question
has often been discussed in commentaries on Acts and on the Epistle to the
Galatians. There is, first of all, a grammatical question. It is conceivable
either that Ppvyiav is a substantive and means ‘ Phrygia,’ or that it is
an adjective qualifying xdpa, strictly co-ordinate with TaAarixjv, and
meaning ‘ Phrygian.’
The majority of recent commentators take the latter view. It is
quite possible, and is supported by the awkwardness of the alternate
view, which gives us a substantive with an article closely tied up to another
substantive with a qualifying adjective without an article. It is argued
that ‘Phrygia and the Galatian district’ could not be translated into
Greek by tiv Ppvyiav cai TaXdatixjv xwpay, for, as the later scribes saw,
if Phrygia is a substantive, there should be an article before adatixijy.
Nevertheless there is more to be said for the other view than has often
been admitted in recent books. Two arguments deserve consideration.
(i.) Ppvycos, the adjective formed from Ppvg, was ‘ of three termina- ®piyros.
tions ’ in earlier Greek, but Lucian uses it as of only two,! and I know of no
instance of the nominative with the feminine termination in Greek con-
temporary with the New Testament. There may be examples of which
I am ignorant, and it may be merely an accident, but the spelling and use
of such words is largely a matter of fashion, and it is probable that the
declension of many words was in practice more irregular than grammarians
have always admitted.? In any case Ppvyia had undoubtedly become a
substantive proper name, and the first thought of any reader would be
to interpret it so. Moreover it is quite possible that TaAarixy) xadpa was
a recognized name for a certain district (probably, as is argued later,
where Gaelic was predominantly spoken), and was customarily used
without the article, especially in combination with another substantive.
One article was enough for both. An exact parallel is given by Tis
*Irovpaias Kat Tpaywviridos xapas in Luke iii. 1, where it is similarly
possible to say that "Irovpaias is an adjective, but it can really hardly be
doubted that to the ordinary reader the phrase meant ‘ Ituraea and the
district of Trachonitis.’
(ii.) Even more powerful is the argument supplied by Acts xviii. 23, Acts xviii.
where Luke writes of Paul’s return from Syria to Ephesus that he ¢é7\6ev **-
1 Harmonides 1.
* For an example of heteroclitism see the notes on ‘ Lystra,’ pp. 162f., and
on ‘ Three Sabbaths,’ pp. 202 f.
The history
of Asia
Minor.
232 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
(from Antioch) Svepxdpevos xabeEjs tHv Tadarixiy xopav cat Ppvyiav.
Here again we have the same composite district, travelled in the reverse
direction. Exactly the same words are used, but in the opposite order,
and it is impossible to argue here that Ppvyia is an adjective. As before,
the article comes at the beginning and is not repeated with the second
phrase.
Thus I believe that there is a preponderance of sound argument for
thinking that in xvi. 6 Ppvyia was intended by Luke for a substantive
as it is in xviii. 23. Why Luke or anyone else used one form for Phrygia
and another for ‘the Galatian district’ is a further point; but it is not
impossible that he did not know, any more than most Englishmen know
why they add -shire to the name of some counties and not to others, or
Americans know why they say ‘State of Maine’ (not, be it noted, the
State of Maine) but ‘ New York State.’
Accepting, then, the view that 7 Ppvyia cai Tadatixi ydpa means
a composite entity of which one part was called ‘ Phrygia’ and the other
‘ Galatian country,’ the questions arise: (i.) in what sense would these two
names be applied to any one part of Asia Minor? and (ii.) what route
did Paul follow if he went through it ?
The obscurity which surrounds any attempt to define what may be
meant by Phrygia and Galatia is partly due to the history of central Asia
Minor, which was for centuries conditioned by a series of invasions. We
do not know, though archaeology will probably reveal before long, to what
race the earliest inhabitants of central Asia Minor belonged. They may
have been members of what is commonly called the Mediterranean race,
but at present we know little about them, and though we may discover
some details, it is very probable that we shall never know with certainty
the nature of their language. The first event of which we have reasonably
accurate information is that the Hittites, who were probably not aborigines,
were the lords of Asia Minor in the third millennium before Christ. In-
formation about the Hittites is accumulating almost daily, and though it
would be improper to say that they were an Indo-European race, some of
them certainly used an Indo-European language for official purposes.
Their capital, or at all events one of their chief cities, was at Pteria,
perhaps better known under its Turkish name Boghaz-Keui.
The Hittites carried on alternating war and commerce with Egypt and
Assyria. In the second millennium before Christ their western frontier was
invaded by the Greeks, and few things have been more romantic in the
history of archaeology than the discovery on Hittite monuments of probable
references to the Achaeans and to the names of heroes whom we had been
inclined to regard as mythical rather than historical. A similar invasion
of Asia Minor was carried out very successfully at the same time, or a
little earlier, by the Phrygians, who came from the Balkan district, and
conquered the Hittites at least so far as to occupy the western part of
Asia Minor up to Iconium. The remaining power of the Hittites in eastern
Asia Minor disappeared in the days of the Babylonian and Persian Empires,
which, from the point of view of Asia Minor, may be regarded as invasions
coming from the south and covering the middle of the first millennium.
- hae * ae
XVII PAUL’S ROUTE IN ASIA MINOR 233
Then the tide turned again, and the country was once more swept by
invading Greeks under Alexander of Macedonia and his successors.
Just at this time, about the year 278, a new invasion began. The
Gauls coming from the north were then invading all the Mediterranean
lands, and they came into Asia Minor partly as invaders, partly as mer-
cenaries. They overran Phrygia, and ultimately established a kingdom
with Ancyra (the modern Angora) as its capital; their language was akin
to Welsh and other Celtic dialects. Thus part of Phrygia ceased to be
Phrygian, though the Galatians seem to have adopted the Phrygian cult
of the Great Mother. Owing to Greek influence the territory dominated
by the Gauls was called by outsiders ‘ Galatia,’ just as owing to Latin
influence the similar kingdom in the West was called ‘ Gallia.’ It is not
necessary to go into the details of the history of these Gauls. They were
constantly fighting with all their neighbours, and especially with the Pontic
kings to the north.
In 121 3B.c. the Romans declared Galatia free, which meant subject
to Rome instead of Pontus. In Pompey’s reorganization of the east
Galatia was put under three chiefs, of whom the survivor and ultimate
king of the whole district was Deiotarus. He was succeeded in 40 B.c.
by Castor, but Mark Antony reorganized the whole district, making Castor
king of Galatia, Amyntas, formerly secretary to Deiotarus, king of Pisidia,
and Polemon king of Lycaonia. The capitals of these three kingdoms
were Ancyra, Pisidian Antioch, and Iconium. In 36 B.c. Castor died, and
Amyntas was given Lycaonia and Galatia, from which he now took his title
as king, Polemon being compensated by appointment to the kingdom of
Pontus. Amyntas appears to have been a competent ruler, and increased
his kingdom by the addition of Pamphylia and part of Cilicia. In 25 B.c.
he was killed, and the Romans took over his kingdom as a province, to
which they gave the name of Provincia Galatia. The province of Galatia
thus became the Roman name of large tracts of land which had formerly
belonged to other kingdoms, especially to Phrygia and to Lycaonia. It
was, of course, very much larger than Galatia proper, and in large parts of
it there were no Galatians at all.
Thus, to return to Acts xvi. 6, in the first century ‘ Galatia’ or ‘Galatian Petey .
territory ’ might conceivably have had any one of three meanings: (i.) Ante it =
the old kingdom of Galatia ; (ii.) the larger and indistinctly defined terri-
tory where Gaelic was spoken ; (iii.) the Roman province of Galatia, which
did not coincide with either (i.) or (ii.).
The older commentators interpreted ‘the Galatian district’ in Acts Lightfoot.
xvi. 6 as the ‘ kingdom of Galatia.’ Lightfoot’s exposition of this theory
is the best and most accessible.1 He takes Asia to mean the province,
and explains tv Ppvyiav kai adAatrixjvy ywpayv as the country which had
once been Phrygia and afterwards Galatia. He thinks that Paul may
have gone as far as Ancyra, and that he may have intended to visit the
eastern part of Bithynia. The decisive objections to this theory are that
it was three hundred years since ‘ Galatia’ had been ‘ Phrygia,’ and that
1 J. B. Lightfoot, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians.
234 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
Ancyra is so far from Mysia that to describe it as xara tiv Muciay is
impossible.
Ramsay. A more attractive suggestion was made by Sir W. M. Ramsay in 1892
in a course of lectures at Oxford, and published in 1893 with the title
The Church in the Roman Empire before 170 4.D. Few more brilliantly
attractive books have ever been written, and to the present writer this
book and its sequel, St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, were a
revelation of the possibilities opened by biblical archaeology. Ramsay
thought that the source of this part of Acts was characterized by a care-
fully accurate use of Roman official phraseology, and explained Acts xvi. 6
in the light of this theory. He took ‘ Asia’ to mean the province, thought
that the Galatia implied by Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians was the district
of Lystra, Derbe, Iconium, and Antioch, which were within the province,
and explained tv Ppvyiav kat T'adatixjvy ywpav as meaning the regio
Phrygia Galatica, which was, he thought, the official name of the district
of Lystra and the other cities mentioned.
The Epistle The difficulty of deciding who were the recipients of the Epistle to the
a ale Galatians is of course separate from the interpretation of Acts xvi. 6. It
would be out of place to discuss it in full in this note, but it may be said
that the problem resolves itself into three subordinate questions.
(i.) Were those to whom the Epistle was sent Galatians in the ethno-
logical sense or were they Greeks, or at least Greek-speaking persons,
living in a district called Galatia ? The fact that the Epistle is written in
Greek, not in Gaelic, at least shows that they understood Greek, though
it does not follow that they were not Gauls by birth.
(ii.) Would persons not Galatians by birth (and the inhabitants of
Lystra, etc., were certainly not Galatians by blood) have cared to be
addressed as Galatians merely because they lived in a province of that
name? So far as I can see we have no means of answering this question.
It is futile to discuss it on the basis of modern analogies, which can generally
be made to prove whichever view the writer prefers, but it seems very
improbable that Greek-speaking Phrygians or Lycaonians would have
described themselves as Galatians—a markedly national word—merely
because for purposes of government the Romans treated their country as
part of a complex to which they had given the name of Galatia.
(iii.) The fact that Acts does not describe any missionary work among
Galatians loses its importance when we compare Acts’ account of Paul
in Corinth with the information derived from the Epistles. See note on
Acts xix. 1-20. It is abundantly clear that in dealing with Paul, just as in
dealing with the early church, Luke gave a selection, not a complete
statement of the facts.
Phrygia But if the identification of the ‘ Galatians’ of the Epistle be foreign
Galatica. +9 the present purpose, the interpretation of tiv Ppvyiav Kat Tadarixijy
xépayv is, on the contrary, extremely important for the meaning of Acts.
Ramsay holds that when the province of Galatia was organized its com-
ponent parts were called regiones and described by their original names
with the addition of the adjective Galatian; so that there was Pontus
Galaticus, Phrygia Galatica, and so on. Pontus Galaticus is attested by
Ee —
xvi PAUL’S ROUTE IN ASIA MINOR 235
inscriptions and by Ptolemy,’ but there is very little evidence (apparently
only Galen) for Phrygia Asiana, and none for Phrygia Galatica. It is true
that Ramsay quotes the Menologium Sirletianum for Phrygia Galatica,
but to do so he emends the text, which is ‘‘ Hi sancti martyres fuerunt sub
Diocletiano imperatore in urbe Antiochiae Pisidiae ex regione Phrygiae
Galaciae sub praeside Magno.” Ramsay emends Galaciae to Galaticae, and
so gets evidence for Phrygia Galatica. But surely there is no justification
for this emendation. The natural construction would be to take Galaciae
(the spelling of which is orthographical fashion, not a mistake) as de-
pendent on praeside—‘ when Magnus was governor of Galatia.’
Admittedly Phrygia Galatica would have been a natural term for
officials to use for the Phrygian districts of the province of Galatia. But
that is not quite the real point. Would anyone, not a Roman official,
have used the phrase? To the inhabitants Lystra and Derbe were
Lycaonian cities, Iconium probably and Antioch certainly were Phrygian
cities, and it is very doubtful if anyone except an official would have
troubled to qualify the statement. The Greeks living in such cities were
of course Greeks, and would not have called themselves Phrygians or
Lycaonians, but neither would they have called themselves Galatians.
There is another objection. Phrygia Galatica may have been the
official title of the part of Phrygia incorporated in the province of Galatia.
As has been said, there is no evidence for this, but it would not be sur-
prising if evidence were found. It would be analogous to the undoubted
use of Pontus Galaticus. But why should this be rendered in Greek by
Ppvyia kai Vadarixy xwpa rather than by 7) TaAatixy Ppvyia? Ramsay
indeed argues that xwpa represents an official use of regio to describe the
subdivisions of the province. But there is no evidence for this use in
Galatia except Ramsay’s claim that an inscription at Antioch 2 which
reads exatovtapxnv [?]eyewvapiov should be completed by reading a p
for the missing letter, as Sterrett first thought, and not a A as he after-
wards preferred. But Acyewvdprov is as natural a title for a centurion as
peyewvdprov is unusual.
Moreover, on this point we ought to be guided by Roman practice in
Asia. This province was, we are told by Cassiodorus (s. anno 679), divided
by Sulla into regiones, but Cicero uses civitates not regiones in describing
this division, Appian says that it was kata 7éXes, and CIG. 3902 speaks
of diocxyjoers, obviously in the sense of regiones. It seems clear that a
regio was not an ancient kingdom but the district surrounding a prominent
city. It is rendered in Greek in several ways.
Thus the analogy of Asia gives no support to the view that in
Acts xvi. 6 x«pa. is likely to be the Greek rendering of regio used in the
official sense of a division of a province, corresponding to an ancient
kingdom.
Finally, perhaps decisive against Ramsay’s theory is the fact that if
9) Ppvyia cat TaXdarixi) ydpa means the regio of the province of Galatia
called Phrygia Galatica, it is impossible that Paul’s route through this
1 Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 81.
2 Published by Sterrett in his Epigraphical Journey in Asia Minor.
Paul’s more
probable
route.
236 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
district brought him out anywhere near Mysia. Ramsay has to argue
that Paul, after passing through Phrygia Galatica, journeyed through the
province of Asia until he came to the neighbourhood of Mysia, for though
the Spirit prevented him from preaching in Asia, it did not prevent him
from travelling through it. Without being impossible this seems to me
very unlikely. The natural meaning of Acts is that because Paul could
not preach in ‘ Asia’ he changed his plans and went through Phrygia, etc.
—which by implication was not ‘ Asia.’ Moreover, though Ramsay
thinks that the order of words in xvi. 6, not the construction of the sentence,
gives the order of events, it is hard to agree that this is probable. His
theory demands that Paul first passed through Phrygia Galatica and then
was prevented by the Spirit from preaching in Asia. But the natural
interpretation of the Greek is the opposite.
“Therefore, attractive though Ramsay’s theory be,! it is probably un-
tenable.
A more probable view seems to be that when Paul reached Iconium
he meant to go along the main road to the Greeks of the Lycus Valley
and the coast, the district which Luke calls Asia. But he had a revelation
which made him change his mind, and he went north through Phrygia
and territory where Galatians were numerous. If this view be accepted
‘Phrygia and Galatian country’ means territory in which sometimes
Phrygian and sometimes Gaelic was the language of the villagers. His
route may have been through Laodicea, Amorion, and Orkistos (surely a
Gaelic place) to Nakoleia and perhaps to Dorylaeum. Either Nakoleia
or Dorylaeum might be said to be kata tiv Mvuoiav. He was also on
the direct road to Nicaea, and certainly from Nakoleia and probably from
Dorylaeum there was a straight road to Troas, ‘skirting’ Mysia—if that
be the meaning of zapeAOwv. In one or the other of these places he was
once more prevented by revelation from working as he had intended—
this time in Bithynia—and so turned to the left and went through Mysia
to Troas.
This theory does not differ essentially from Ramsay’s as to the route
which Paul took, but gives a different explanation of the phrases in xvi. 6.
It implies that Paul was influenced by language rather than political
boundaries, and that Luke similarly describes the districts traversed in
terms of language rather than in official Roman terminology. Paul was
looking for places where he could preach intelligibly, that is to say, in
Greek. A Greek audience could be found in Antioch of Pisidia and in
Iconium. But these places were closed for any renewed preaching, and
he had the choice of going beyond them to the great Greek cities of ‘ Asia,’
or of going north to the equally Greek cities of Bithynia—Nicaea or Nico-
media. ‘ Asia’ was nearer, and more attractive, and he first thought of
1 In my Earlier Epistles of St. Paul I was quite convinced by it. I thought
that Paul probably kept south of the Sultan Dagh, and went up through
Kinnaborion to Kotiaeon. Nor did any reviewers help my conversion, which
is mainly due to the impression, made by the minute-labour of writing the
commentary, that Luke does not specially use Roman official language and that
Ramsay’s theory makes as many difficulties as it solves.
—-
XVII PAUL’S ROUTE IN ASIA MINOR 237
going there. Possibly Metropolis and Apameia were sufficiently Greek
for him to have thought of them as belonging in a cultural sense to ‘ Asia,’
though they were usually reckoned as Phrygian. When revelation made
him give up this plan, he turned northward and had to go through a non-
Greek country where the language mainly alternated between Phrygian
and Gaelic. Just when he was near the great cities of Bithynia, he was
again stopped. Not until he reached Corinth? could he find a city with
the three necessary but complex conditions for extensive and settled
preaching—a large Greek-speaking population (which must, however, not
be too Greek-thinking), prosperous Greek-speaking synagogues to ensure ~
an initial hearing for him, and a sufficiently developed anti-Judaism to
render Jewish hostility relatively unimportant when he was successful in
diverting ‘ God-fearers ’ from the Synagogue to the Church.
There remains yet one other way of dealing with this problem. What-
ever theory be adopted to explain Acts xvi. 6, it remains almost unique
for its omission to mention the cities through which Paul passed. He
cannot have gone from Lystra to Troas without going through a number
of well-known cities, whatever route he followed, and Luke’s habit is to
mention the cities through which Paul went, even when he has nothing
more to say about them.
This is a strong point in favour of Schwartz’s theory that the two
missionary journeys are really one. According to this view the visit to
Jerusalem to relieve the famine (Acts xi. 30 and xii. 25) is the same as
the visit to Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council (Acts xv.), and in Addi-
tional Note 16 it has been argued that this is probably right. But Acts
xi. 30, xii. 25, and xv. are all immediately followed by accounts of
a missionary journey. If the visits to Jerusalem are the same, argues
Schwartz, so also must be the journeys which follow; Luke has merely
made two journeys out of one and has added an end and a beginning at
the appropriate points. According to this theory xiv. 21-28 is an editorial
patch, put in in order to bring Paul back to Antioch and Jerusalem, and
1 In Lystra and in Derbe the villagers appear to have spoken Lycaonian.
It survived as a spoken language at least until the sixth century. It is mentioned
in the life of Martha, the mother of Symeon Thaumastorites (cf. A.S.S. May 5,
p. 413). Also in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople in a.p. 536 reference
is made to two Lycaonian monasteries in Constantinople—that of Modestus
and that of Eutychius. (See Mansi, viii. 1055, and cf. K. Holl’s ‘ Das Fortleben
der Volkssprachen in Kleinasien in nachchristlichen Zeit,’ in Hermes, xliii. (1908)
pp. 240 ff.) Phrygian was probably spoken in Iconium; it was an Indo-Euro-
pean language and survived in outlying districts for some centuries. In all
the cities there was naturally some knowledge of Greek, though probably not
enough to reward any prolonged stay by Paul. But it is probable that in the
country (7 x#pa as opposed to ras 7é\ers) Greek was of little use. In any case
the lower classes were too hostile. In Macedonia there was too much Jewish
influence; in Athens too much really Greek scepticism; only in Corinth was
there that peculiar Greco-Oriental stratum which was satisfactory for Paul’s
preaching.
Schwartz's
theory.
238 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
xv. 36-xvi. 9 is a corresponding patch, added in order to bring him back
from Jerusalem to Troas. Both patches are marked by vagaries and
absence of detail.
The main objection to this theory is that it changes the story as told
by Luke more than we should like. For this reason I have struggled
against accepting it, but find myself less and less able to see good reasons
against it. Probably it is the most likely guess in a complex of problems
which will never be settled quite satisfactorily.
If it be adopted, its corollaries should be noted. It implies the follow-
ing smaller points :
(i.) Luke’s account of the ‘first journey’ must have been an Antiochian-
Barnabas source, rather than a Pauline source. This obviously explains
the general tenor of the narrative far better than the theory that Luke
had a single source and deliberately cut it into two. A Barnabas source
(which need not mean that Barnabas had anything to do with writing it)
would naturally not contain the further adventures of Paul. All that
Luke did was to bring Paul into the end of it, and not notice or not know
that Paul and Barnabas separated at Lystra+on their return journey to
that city. He then also put in a short account of a journey across Asia
Minor, of which he had heard something, in order to link up his narrative
with the true Pauline story as given in the ‘ we-source,’ where the charac-
teristic fullness of detail as to the route followed really begins.
The main point therefore is that Luke had two sources : (a) a Barnabas-
‘Antiochian source, which gave him the material for chapters xiii.-xiv. 20.
This brought Barnabas back to Antioch, but did not say explicitly what
Paul did. (b) A Pauline source, including the ‘ we-document,’ whether
written by Luke or used by him, which gave a detailed account of Paul’s
journey from Troas to Corinth and Ephesus. It did not explain how Paul
reached Troas. To bring together these sources Luke put in a few connect-
ing paragraphs characterized by a geographical vagueness quite different
from either source, and presenting enormous difficulties to any commentator
who tries to extract from them a precision of detail which Luke never
put into them.
(ii.) There is some difficulty in seeing what were the facts about Paul’s
quarrel with Barnabas. As it stands in Acts at present, it is tempting to
identify it with the quarrel described in Gal. ii. 11. But this can hardly
be right, nor do the details agree, for in Acts the question is about Mark,
and in Galatians it is about intercourse with the Gentiles. Perhaps Luke
knew from his Antiochian source that Paul and Barnabas had quarrelled
in Antioch, and thought erroneously that this was the same quarrel as
that about Mark which had prevented Barnabas from coming to Troas
with Paul.
(iii.) An extreme possibility may be mentioned. I have never felt quite
so certain as both Mr. Emmet and Professor Windisch were in Vol. II.
that Luke knew nothing about the Pauline Epistles. Admittedly he made
little or no use of them; but it would be an extraordinary thing that
1 Or possibly Iconium, Derbe, or Antioch—the exact point is immaterial.
xvii PAUL’S ROUTE IN ASIA MINOR 239
anyone who so clearly was either a member of the Pauline circle, or had
access to its traditions, should have been ignorant of letters which were
well known both in Rome and Antioch! so soon after Acts was written.
It seems to me not impossible that he knew the Epistles, and perhaps
even thought that Christians were gaining a wrong impression of the work
done by Paul, who was unfairly represented by letters written contro-
versially and for special purposes. Is it an accident that he describes
Paul’s first dealings with the Romans, the Corinthians, the Ephesians, and
the Thessalonians ? If it be not, it is possibly justifiable to go a step
further, and emphasize the fact that Galatia is the remaining church which
Paul founded and wrote to. If Luke knew this and had any interest in
the foundation of the Pauline churches, he may have noted that the
narrative, as it was in his sources, gave no place after xvi. 6 for the founda-
tion of the Galatian churches. Possibly he thought that it belonged to
the period, just before Paul went to Europe, for which his two main
sources gave him no information. Moreover it is not impossible that he
was right.
3. The Route of Paul’s ‘ Third Journey’
Compared with the complexities of the ‘second journey,’ this offers The ‘third’
few difficulties. There are indeed only two. ieee
(i.) The meaning of 77)v Tadatixjy xwpav kai Ppvyiav in Acts xviii. 23.
Formerly ? I interpreted this in accordance with Ramsay’s theory. Accord-
ing to this the province of Galatia was divided into regiones ; the part which
once had been in the kingdom of Lycaonia was called Lycaonia Galatica,
the remainder of Lycaonia, which was in Paul’s time ruled by Antiochus,
being called Lycaonia Antiochiana. Similarly the old kingdom of Phrygia
was divided between the provinces of Asia and Galatia and called Phrygia
Asiana and Phrygia Galatica. Thus Paul passed first through Lycaonia
Antiochiana, then through Lycaonia Galatica, Phrygia Galatica, and Phrygia
Asiana successively. This theory certainly fits the facts. Paul doubtless
came through the ‘ Cilician gate’ above Tarsus, and the direct road to
Ephesus passed through these districts.
Whether this is exactly what Luke meant is another question. It calls
for a remarkable mixture of terminology ; 7) D'aAatvxi) xwpa is (according
to it) a strict use of Roman phraseology, but Ppvyia is used in the
ethnological sense and covers two Roman regiones in two separate
provinces. Moreover it is hard to see why Lycaonia Antiochiana is not
mentioned. The natural way to have expressed the facts called for by
Ramsay’s theory would have been dvepxopevos kabeEjs tiv AvKaoviav
(both divisions) kai tv Ppvyiay (both divisions).
A different explanation may therefore be considered favourably.
Luke’s habit is not to repeat phrases exactly, but to vary them. The
variation is a matter of style, and does not imply a change of meaning.
Here he is summarizing a long journey which covers territory that Paul
1 Testibus Clement and Ignatius.
2 The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 260 f.
Pausanias.
The
Pergamene
inscription.
240 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
had already travelled through before. He varies the phrase for Phrygia
and Galatia, but probably only means that he again went to the places
in Galatia and Phrygia which he had visited before. Which these places
were depends on the view taken of xvi. 6.
(ii.) The meaning of Ta dvwrepixad pépy in xix. 1. This passage cannot
be dissociated from the previous one: Ramsay?’ thinks it merely means
that Paul came by a road over the hills instead of by the main road. The
alternative and more probable view is that dueA@dvra ra dvwrepiKd pépy
refers back, with variation of phrase, to the Svepxdpevos KabeEns tiv
Tadarixiy xdpav kat Ppvyiav in xviii. 23, so that Ta, dvwrepiKd pépy and
tTHv Tadarixjvy xépav kat Ppvyiav mean the same district. The pro-
blem cannot be separated from the interpretation of xvi. 6 and its solution
can never be certain, because dvwrepixd is a vague phrase. It means
‘higher,’ and its exact significance depends on the context. It may be
higher up a river, or a mountain, or from the coast. In relation to
Ephesus the last seems somewhat the most probable, but the point is
uncertain. Happily, unlike the obscurity of xvi. 6, it is not really very
important.
Nore XIX. Taz Unknown Gop
By Kirsopr LAKE
The evidence concerning the altar ‘to the unknown God’ in Athens
can best be divided into the two classes of (i.) heathen analogies and (ii.)
early Christian exegesis.
(i.) Heathen Analogies
(a) Pausanias i. 1. 4 says that on the road from Phalerum to Athens
there were Bwyol Oedv Te dvopafopéevwv ayvéotwv Kai jpwwv Kal Taidwv
Tov Oncéws Kal Badjpov.
(b) Pausanias v. 14. 8 says that at Olympia by the great altar of Zeus
there were other altars, including an altar ‘to unknown gods’—zpds
adT@ & éoTtiv ayvdotwv Oeav Bopés, Kal peTa TOUTOV Kabapoiov Atds
KTA.
(c) An inscription was published in 1910 by H. Hepding from
Pergamos in the precinct of Demeter, which probably belongs to the
second century A.D. and may be plausibly reconstructed
QEOILAT (vworors)
KATIIT(wr)
AAAOYXO(s)
but might equally be read Oeois dywtdros. (For a discussion of the
reconstruction see especially Birt, Rhein. Mus. f. Phil., 1914; Weinreich,
‘De dis ignotis quaestiones’ in Archiv f. Religionswiss. xviii. (1915) pp.
29 ff., O. Kern, Hermes, xlvi. pp. 434f, and Deissman, Paulus, App. IL.)
1 St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, p. 265.
XIX THE UNKNOWN GOD 241
(d) Diogenes Laertius, i. 110, writing early in the third century, piogenes
describes how in time of pestilence the Athenians sent for Epimenides Mertius.
the Cretan to help them fulfil the command of the oracle to offer
atonement for the city. Epimenides took black and white sheep to the
Areopagus, and the story goes on: KdxeiOev ciacvev iévas of BovrowvTo,
Tporrdgas Tots dkoAovGos evOa av KatakAivor avtav exaotov Ovew TH
mpoonkovTe Gep, Kai ottw Anka Td Kakdv. OOev Ere kal viv éoTu ebpeiv
Kara ods Sipous Tov ’APnvaiov Bopors dvovipors, drduvnpa ths Tére
yevopevns e&tAdoews. Birt (Rhein. Mus. f. Phil., 1914) has shown good
grounds for thinking (as is wholly probable in itself) that Diogenes was
repeating an earlier tradition. To this there may be a reference in
Aristotle, "A@nvaiwy IloAiteia, of which the first lines mention the
purification of the city by Epimenides the Cretan. Plutarch also (Solon
xii.) says that after the Cylonian pollution and the banishment of the
family of Megacles the Athenians were attacked by the Megarians, and
the city became a prey to superstitious panic. The seers declared that
their sacrifices proved that the city was polluted and needed expiation.
For this purpose Epimenides was summoned. He helped Solon to
reform the religion of the city, and Plutarch continues: 7d 6€ péyurrov
ihagpois Tit Kai Kkabappois Kat idpioert Katopyidoas Kal Kafoowdcas
tThv modu trjKoov Tod Sikaiov Kat padrdAov evre.OH mpds Spdvoray
KATETTHCE.
(e) Philostratus in the Life of Apollonius of Tyana, vi. 3. 5, tells the Philo-
story of a certain Timasion who had left his home to escape the incon- x
venient affection of his stepmother, which was like that of Phaedra for
Hippolytus. Unlike Hippolytus, however, he had not insulted Aphrodite,
but had consistently sacrificed to her. In this respect, said Apollonius,
he was wiser than Hippolytus: kal adrd dé 7d Sia Be BAjorOa mpos ovTiva
67 TOV Gedy, dorEep mpds THY “Agpoditny 6 ‘InwéXvros, ovk avi
cwppoovns * cwppoverrepov yap 7d wept rdvrwv Oedv ed Aéyerv, Kal
tavra “AOjvyot ob Kat dyviorwv Sarpovev Bopot ®pvvtra It should
be noted that the phrase kat ratra “A@jvyot means ‘especially in
Athens,’ and the point of the whole is that Hippolytus, who was living
in Athens, was peculiarly foolish to insult the gods in a place which was
so devoted to them (and they to it) that there were even altars to
unknown gods, The reference is adequately annotated by the passages
from Pausanias and Diogenes Laertius given above.
There is therefore no reason to suppose, as Norden has suggested,
that the reference to Athens shows that the passage is taken from an
episode in Athens in the supposed ‘Damis’ source of Philostratus,
the existence of which seems disproved by E. Meyer in Hermes, 1917,
pp. 399 ff. (see E. Norden, Agnostos Theos, pp. 35 ff.; Corssen, ZNTW.,,
1913, pp. 309 ff.; Harnack, ‘Die Rede des Paulus in Athen usw.’ in
PU 4: X525%. (1913) p. 39; Birt, Rhein. Mus., 1914, pp. 3465 ff.).
(f) There is also one other piece of evidence which has sometimes but Pseudo-
erroneously been alleged as heathen testimony to an altar to ‘an unknown Via”.
God’ in Athens. The main topic in the Philopatris, ascribed to Lucian,
is the worship of the unknown God who has an altar in Athens. If the
VOL. V R
Conclusions.
Tertullian.
Clement.
Jerome.
242 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
treatise were really Lucian’s this would be extremely important, but the
Philopatris is obviously a Christian document of a much later date, and
is now generally assigned to the tenth century (see Krumbacher, Byzan-
tinische Literaturgeschichte, pp. 188 f.).
The significant point in this evidence is that it establishes the
existence in Athens and at Olympia of altars to unknown gods. The
reconstruction of the Pergamene inscription is too doubtful to be used
with confidence. The story in Diogenes Laertius gives at least one
reason why such altars were erected. The chief value of the story in
Philostratus is that it shows that the anonymous altars of Athens were
well known, and suggests that they were unusual elsewhere. There is
no evidence for an altar to any one god who was specially called ‘the
unknown,’ but the story in Diogenes Laertius suggests that the singular
may have been used in the formula 7 rpooyjxovrt Gem, meaning ‘to the
unknown god who is concerned in the matter’; dyvéatw Oe@ would be
a loose but not very inaccurate paraphrase. I do not see why Wiken-
hauser and others are so certain that t@ mpooyjKovTs was not used,
though the text of Diogenes does not necessarily imply that it was.
It is perhaps noteworthy that the proper Greek idiom for an
inscription on an altar usually puts the name of the god in the genitive,
not in the dative as Luke does. The dative does, however, come in the
Pergamene inscription in the second century, as well as in Tertullian,
Jerome, and Euthalius. Apparently the fashion changed.
(ii.) Christian Exegesis
(a) Tertullian in Ad nationes ii. 9 says: “sed et Romanorum deos
Varro bifariam disposuit, in certos et electos. Tantam vanitatem! quid
enim erat illis cum incertis si certos habebant? Nisi si Attico stupore
recipere voluerunt, nam et Athenis ara est inscripta: ignotis deis.”
The text of this passage is clearly defective, and there is only one
extant manuscript. We may confidently accept the emendation of the
first editor, Jacobus Gothofredus (1625), who printed trifariam for
bifartam and inserted incertos between wm certos and et, but Attico
stupore recipere is more difficult. Reifferscheid prints Atticos stupores,
following the 1634 edition of Nic. Rigaltius, and Norden emends recipere
into recinere. But for the present purpose it is enough that Tertullian
clearly knew a tradition of an altar in Athens to ‘unknown gods.’ He
is making no special allusion to Acts, but rather regards these altars as a
well-known characteristic of Attic practice. The same comment holds of
another passage (Adv. Marcion. i.9) where he says: “Invenio plane ignotis
deis aras prostitutas, sed Attica idololatria est; item incertis deis, sed
superstitio Romana est.” This leaves but little doubt that Tertullian
quoted ‘unknown gods’ as a typically Attic phrase, and knew that it
was generally so recognized.
(6b) Clement of Alexandria (Strom. v. 82) and Origen (in Joh. x. 5)
quote Acts, but do not discuss the question of the altar or its inscription.
(c) Jerome flatly asserts that Paul changed the plural ‘ gods’ into the
ey >
XIX THE UNKNOWN GOD 243
singular ‘god.’ In the Comment. in Titum, i. 12, he says: “nec mirum si
pro opportunitate temporis gentilium poetarum versibus abutatur, cum
etiam de inscriptione arae aliqua commutans ad Athenienses locutus sit,
pertransiens enim, inquit, et contemplans culturas vestras inveni et aram
in qua superscriptum est ‘ignoto deo,’ quod itaque ignorantes colitis hoc
ego annuntio vobis. Inscriptio autem arae non ita erat, ut Paulus
asseruit, ‘ignoto deo,’ sed ita: ‘Diis Asiae et Europae et Africae diis
ignotis et peregrinis.’ Verum quia Paulus non pluribus diis indigebat
sed uno tantum ignoto deo, singulari verbo usus est,” etc.
The same inscription (to the gods of Asia, etc.) is quoted in the Euthalius.
Euthalian apparatus to Acts, but there the last phrase “diis ignotis et
peregrinis” is changed to the singular, doubtless in accommodation to the
text of Acts. It reads: Qeots *Acias kat Evpéarns cat ArBins, Ged Te
ayvéotm Kat Eevp* Tode 7d exlypappa IlatAos dvayvots ednpoyopei.
Unfortunately the date of ‘ Euthalius’ is wholly uncertain ; in its present
form the Euthalian apparatus may be a late composition, even if the
original form is early, and no one knows which parts are early and
which are late.
The Euthalian tradition is copied by the Catena of Andreas which
exists in three forms, published under the names of Theophylact and
Oecumenius. (See Migne, PG. cxxv. pp. 745 ff, 997 ff., and PG. exviii.
pp. 237 ff.)
(d) A line of interpretation, which may come from the same source
as Jerome’s, but cannot be derived from him and may be entirely inde-
pendent, is found in Didymus of Alexandria, according to a fragment of
a catena on the epistles published in Mai’s Nova Bibitotheca Patrum, iv.
2, p. 139. This, commenting on 2 Cor. x. 5 (aixpadwrtifovtes mav
vonpa eis THY Vrakonv TOV Xpwrtod), says: Sbvarov éxAaPetv Kai ovTws °
wav vonpa Td Orws rote ev Tive SidacKkadia hepdpevov dvdyKy kat Bia
petorxifovres mpds Td Teivas Drakovoa TH Xpirto hepdpevov’ obtw yap
To “A@jvnow dvakeipevov Bwyd exiypapya eudaivoyv roddOv Gewv
vonpa éeXkvoas 6 TadTa ypapwv peTHveyKev eis TOV povov GAnOvdv Gedy,
pjcas ov otv ayvootytes edoeBeire kTX. Which may be bad exegesis
of 2 Corinthians, but at least shows that Didymus regarded it as
incontestable that there were altars at Athens to unknown gods in ,
the plural, but not to an unknown god in the singular.
(e) A curiously wide-spread but late tradition affirming that the
altar to the unknown god was connected with a special emergency in
the history of Athens can be traced back partly to the tradition about
Epimenides given by Diogenes Laertius, partly to another story in
Herodotus.
Herodotus vi. 105 tells the story of Pheidippides, the Marathon
runner, who was first sent to Sparta to suggest a treaty. On the way
he met the god Pan, who complained that in spite of his constant help
the Athenians never gave him any worship: PBdécavra 5¢ robvoya Tod
Pedirrisew tov Udva "APynvaiows keetoar drayyeiAat, Sudte Ewvrod
ovdcuiav eripeAcinv rovedvtas eédvTos evvdov “AOnvatows Kal toAAayy
yevopévov ode dn xpyoipov ta S ere Kal évopévov. Kal TatTa pev
Didymus.
"
|
/
Herodotus.
Isidore.
Tsho‘dad.
244 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
’"AOnvaio. katacrévrov ogi eb 75n TOV Tpynypatov mictetoavTes eivat
adyGéa iSptcavro id tH AxpomwoXt Ilavds ipdv Kat adrov dard Tavrns
THS ayyedins Ovoinor érereiowwt Kai Aapardds tAdoKovra. (Cf. also
Pausanias i. 28. 4 and viii, 54. 6.)
This story first reappears in extant Christian writings in Isidore of
Pelusium’s letter to Hero (Migne, PG. 1xxviii. 1128) where the writer clearly
confuses it with the story in Diogenes Laertius. After telling the story
of Pan’s meeting with ‘ Philippides’ (as he and many others write the
name of the runner) he continues: vixjoavres obv Bwpdv gxoddunoav
kat eréypaav: “Ayviorw Oe, dAdo dé hace Ste Aoipds KaTEerKnev
’"AOjvage Kal eis TorovTov adtods eféxavoev Os pynde Tv A|erToTATwV
owddvev avéxerGat, Tods vopsfopevovs odv Oeots eavtav OepamedvovTes
ovdev drdvavto. évvoncavtes obv OTe éotw iows Oeds Tis, dv adrol
Katédirov ayépartov, 6 Tov Aowdv Katamréupas, vadv Seypdpevor
kat Bwpodv éervypdpavres* “Ayvéotw OeG Kat Oicavtes edOéws eOepa-
mev0noay.
(f) The discovery of the commentary of Isho‘dad shows that the
source used by Isidore may have been Theodore of Mopsuestia, who is
quoted by Isho‘dad without the mistake as to the altar, but in a form
which renders that mistake quite natural. He says:
“ About this altar, on which was written, To the hidden God, Mar
Ephraim and others say, that want of rain and earthquakes some-
times happened at Athens; and when they took counsel to make prayers
_ collectively every day, they changed the altars of all their gods; and
when altars were at an end and there were no helps, they overturned
them and threw them down; and again they congregated and took
counsel, saying, If there are no others, who is this one who does not
cease to trouble us? and they carved and set up altars to the hidden
God, whoever He was; and when the mercies of Grace revealed about
the anguish of their minds, He sent them help. But the Interpreter
says that the Athenians were once upon a time at war with their
enemies, and the Athenians retreated from them in defeat; then a
certain Demon appeared and said unto them, I have never been
honoured by you as I ought; and because I am angry with you,
therefore you have had a defeat from your enemies. Then the
Athenians were afraid, and raised to him the well-known altar; and
because they dreaded lest this very thing should happen to them, having
secretly neglected [one] who was unknown to them, they erected for
themselves one altar more, and wrote upon it, Of the Unknown and
Hidden God; and when they wished to say this, that though there is
a God in whom we do not believe, we raise this altar to His honour,
that He may be reconciled to us, although He is not honoured as
known; therefore Paul did well to take a reason from this, and said
before them, This hidden God to whom ye have raised an altar without
knowing Him, I have come to declare unto you. There is no God
whom ye know not, except the true God, who hath appointed the times
by His command, and hath put bounds,” ete. (See Mrs. Gibson’s edition
of Isho‘dad, in Horae Semiticae, x. p. 28.)
XIX THE UNKNOWN GOD 245
Here the ‘well-known altar’ means the altar to Pan, and it is
distinguished from the altar to the unknown God, but a careless reader
might easily make the mistake which appears in Isidore of Pelusium,
especially since the name of Pan is not mentioned.
Less complete and more confused versions of the same story are found
in Bar Salibi and Bar Hebraeus, who are almost certainly dependent on
Tsho ‘dad.
(g) Finally, in a late and historically worthless Pseudo-Athanasian Pseudo- —
treatise, De templo Athenarum,} is a curious legend that the altar of A%@nssius.
the unknown God owed its inscription to a certain Apollo, who
told the seven sages of Greece that by it he intended the Trinity of
which the Logos was to be born of a virgin named Mary.
It will be seen that none of this evidence is of any real value, and it Conclusions.
throws into relief the implication of Tertullian and the clear statements
of Didymus and Jerome that there was no altar to ‘an unknown God,’
but only to ‘unknown gods” This makes all the more plausible the
suggestion that the writer of Acts knew the altars t¢ mpoojKovti Ged
referred to by Diogenes Laertius, that dyvdarw Ged is his (or possibly
Paul’s) paraphrase of the inscription, but that Jerome and others who
knew of altars to ‘unknown gods,’ thought of them rather than of the
altars to T@ mpoonKovTe Gew.
Suggestions have been made that the phrase ‘unknown God’ is
borrowed from Gnosticism or from Hittite religion ; but there is no
evidence that there was ever anywhere an altar to the ‘unknown God’ of
the Gnostics. There is indeed very little evidence that the Gnostics
used this phrase. It is possible that Hittite religion had a theology
which included an unknown Father-God, who was revealed by a Son-
God, but the evidence is slight, and is many centuries earlier than
Acts. It seems extremely improbable that either Gnosticism or Hittite
religion have anything to do with the phrase. In Paul’s speech the
writer takes it to mean the God of the Jews and Christians, though it
certainly did not have that meaning in Athens,
To sum up, it is doubtful whether there was ever an inscription
which read exactly dyvioTp Oew. If there was, it probably was a
survival from the cleansing of the city by Epimenides, and if the
inscription was really in the plural it meant either ‘the gods of other
nations whose names are unknown,’ or ‘gods of importance whom it is
well to propitiate, though they are not known by name.’
For the recent discussions of the subject see E. Norden, Agnostos
Theos; R. Reitzenstein, ‘Die Areopagrede des Paulus’ in the Newe
Jahrbiicher fiir klass. Altertumswiss. xxxi. pp. 393-422 ; Weinreich, ‘ De dis
ignotis quaestiones’ in the Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft, xviii. (1915) ;
P. Corssen, ‘Der Altar des unbekannten Gottes,’ ZNTW., 1913; Ed.
Meyer, ‘ Apollonios von Tyana’ in Hermes, lii. (1917); the reviews of
Norden’s book by Birt in the Rhein. Museum fiir Philologie, 1914, and
1 Printed in Migne, PG. xxviii. coll. 1428 f.
Aratus.
246 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
by F. C. Burkitt in JTS. xv. (1914) pp. 455 ff.; Th. Zahn, Commentary
on Acts, Excursus viii. (pp. 870-882). The fullest summary of the
evidence and recent literature is in Wikenhauser, Die Apostelgeschichte
und ihr Geschichtswert, pp. 369-390.
Notn XX. “Your own Ports”
By Kirsopr LAKE
It is obvious that the use of a familiar quotation by no means
implies that the user was acquainted with the book from which it was
taken. Therefore, although from an early period passages in the speech
of Paul at Athens have been recognized as quotations, it does not
necessarily follow that either Paul or the writer of his speech was
acquainted with the books from which these quotations were taken.
It is doubtful whether the phrase “‘as some also of your own poets
have said” refers forward or backward, or possibly both. The matter
seemed settled by the identification of the phrase “for we are also his
offspring” as a quotation from the Phaenomena of Aratus, but it has
been reopened by the discovery that “for in him we live and move and
have our being” may be taken from Epimenides.
Aratus was born about 310 B.c. of a good Cilician family, either
in Soli or Tarsus. He was the pupil of Menedemos and Menecrates,
and the friend of Zeno the Stoic, and his writings show considerable
Stoic influence. He wrote a poem to Pan, some medical works, an
edition of the Odyssey, and other minor works which are not extant, but
his most famous composition was the Phaenomena, a treatise in verse on
Astronomy, which was very popular and used for many generations as a
school book. (See H. Weinhold, ‘Die Astronomie in der antiken Schule,’
a dissertation at Miinchen, 1912, published in the Zeitschrift f. Gesch.
der Erziehung, N.F. 3, pp. 143 ff) Posidonius wrote a comparison of
him and Homer, which suggests the combination of Homer and Aratus
which is found (see p. 247) in Euthalius and probably in Origen.
The Phaenomena were translated into Latin by Cicero and others, and
many commentaries were written on his work. (See the edition of E.
Maass, 1893; the same writer’s ‘Aratea’ in Philol. Untersuch. xii., 1892 ;
A. Westermann, Mv@oypador, pp. 52 ff, in which are printed the five
extant lives of Aratus, all representing a common source, and Wilamowitz
in the Nachrichten d. gétting. Ges. d. Wissensch., 1894, p. 198.)
The passage quoted from Aratus in Acts is the beginning of the
poem. This was first recognized by Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1, xix.
91.4f. It runs as follows:
2 X\ > A 397 > ” on
éx Aus dpxwperOa. rdv ovdéror’, avdpes, eOpev
dppytov’ peotat 5¢ Ards maca pev ayvial,
réca S avOpirwv dyopat, perth S¢ Oddacoa
x fe 7, XN 4 Pa
kal Awpéves' tavrTn Sé Ards KexpypeOa wavtes.
xx “YOUR OWN POETS” 247
a“ XN \ 4 ) EY 4 “a G9 4 > -
Tov yap Kal yévos eipev’ 0 & rvs avOpwrows
SeEua iver, Naods 8 ei € eye pet
£1 onpaiver, ds 8° ei epyov eyeip
/ , 7 > @ Ay B uh
pipvyvrKwv Bidtow, Aéyer S Ste BOAoS apiory
Bovot re Kat paxéAnuor, Aeyee & dre SeEvat Spat
kal puta yupooa Kal oréppata mévta BadrerOat,
airos yap Th ye ojpar’ év ovpavar errnpi&ev
aotpa Siaxpivas, éoxepato & eis eviavtov
dorepas of ke padiora TeTvypéva, ONpatvovev
> / c / > > , (3
avpdow ‘Apawv, opp eureda mavra hiwvras.
(ed. Maass, 1893, pp. 3 f.)
It is interesting to note that this passage not only contains the
quotation in Acts xvii. 28, but that there is a strong general resemblance
between the second part of the passage and xvii. 26. A note to xvii.
28 in Codex 1739 which usually gives the comments of Origen is
’Apdrov kat “Opujpov roujrov. Von der Goltz, who first published this
Ms., read only "Apaz[ov] (TU. neue Folge, ii. 4, p. 44), but though the
note is erased and faint the other words can be read in a bright light.
The same or a similar note is found in Cod. H, Syr hl and Euthalius,
It is possible that Aratus was using the earlier poem of Cleanthes to
Zeus, which contains the line é« gov yap yévos éopev. No special
reference to Homer can be suggested except the familiar description of
Zeus as ‘father of gods and men.’
Epimenides is a half-mythical figure in Greek history whose story Epimenides
was related by Theopompus and quoted from him in Diogenes Laertius
and other later writers. The same story is told by him as is found in a
later mythology of Rip Van Winkle. His father sent him one day into
the country to drive back some sheep into the city, but he went to sleep
on the road, and when he woke up discovered that nearly all his friends
were dead. At last, however, he found his younger brother, who had
become an old man, and learned from him what had happened. He died
at the age of 157 according to Theopompus, but Diogenes says that the
Cretans held that he was 299 and that Xenophanes gave a different form
of the story which reduced his life to 154.
It is generally presumed that this is the same Epimenides who was
reckoned among the seven sages of Greece, and there is an early tradition,
found both in Plato and in Aristotle, that he purified the city after the
Cylonian pollution in the method described in Addit. Note 19. That
this tradition was found in Aristotle was unknown to modern scholars
until the discovery of the “A@nvaiwv IloAiteia, and Plato’s statement
was regarded as proof that Epimenides came to Athens at the time of
the Persian war. Plato’s words are as follows: tide yap tows akijKoas Plato.
ws Emipevidns yéyovev avnp Oeios, ds Hv Hiv oixetos, €XOav Se xpd Tav
Tlepouxav Séxa erect mpdtepov rap’ buas Kata THY Tov Oeod pavreiay,
Ovaoias re CObcatd Tivas ds 6 eds aveirc, Kai by Kal PoBovpéevwv tov
Ilepouxdv "AOnvaiwy ordXdov efrev Ste Séxa. pev érav odx iEovoww, drav
8 <APwow dradrAayjoovra mpdgavtes oddev dv HAmifov maOdvres Te 4)
Spdcavtes TAEiw Kad. TOT ody eLevoOncav piv ot rpdyovor Hpav, Kat
248 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
edvoav &x Térou Eywye tyiv Kal of yuétEpor Exovow yovas (Plato, Leg. i.
642 D, E).
This seems explicit enough, and the tradition found in Plutarch and
elsewhere that the purification of the city by Epimenides took place in
Aristotle. the time of Solon was generally and naturally discounted. But the
beginning of the ’A@nvaiwv ToArreia is as follows: . . . [M]ipwvos kal”
iepdv 6pdocavres dpiotivinv. KatayvwoGévros S¢ rod a&yo[v]s [vexp]ot
pev ex tov Tabwv ée&eBANOnoav, 7d Se yévos aitav epvyev devpvyiav.
[’Exc]uevidns 8 6 Kpns ért rovrous exdOnpe tiv woAwv. This is at least
as explicit as the statement in Plato, but is inconsistent with it and
confirms the story in Plutarch. The reference is to the Cylonian
pollution of which the earliest accounts are those given by Herodotus
v. 71 and Thucydides i, 126. From these accounts it would appear
that a certain Cylon endeavoured to make himself tyrant. The
attempt failed and some of his followers were killed. In putting them
to death the ruling clan in Athens, the Alemaeonidae, violated the right
of sanctuary. Later on they were punished for this crime. The trial,
according to Plutarch (Solon xii.), was conducted by Myron, and Plutarch
describes how after these events the city still appeared to be polluted
according to the soothsayers and Epimenides was summoned to purify it.
Modern As between Plato and Aristotle it is hard to decide, but the general
sashitacad tendency of modern investigators has been to accept the Aristotelian
story. Diels, especially in the Sitzungsberichte of the Berlin Academy,
argues that the Aristotelian tradition is correct, and the story in Plato is
due to a recrudescence of the question of the Alemaeonidae in the time of
the Persian war. The whole matter is very obscure and is fortunately
not one of those which an editor of Acts has to decide. Obviously
Epimenides is a more or less mythical figure, and Diogenes Laertius
mentions significantly that there was more than one person of that name.
(For modern studies see especially Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker,
vol. ii. 12, pp. 489 ff., and the same writer in the Sttzwngsberichte of the
Berlin Academy, 1891, pp. 387 ff., and Demoulin, ‘Epiménide de
Créte,’ in the Biblioth. de la faculté de philos. et lettres de l’Université
de Liége, fase. xii, 1901.)
Diogenes There was in antiquity a considerable literature attributed to
Laertius. Epimenides. Aristotle mentions a collection of his oracles (Aristot.
Rhet. iii. 17, p. 1418 a 23, cf. Plutarch De def. orac. 1), but the fullest
account is that of Diogenes Laertius i. 111f, who writes: éroinoe dé
Kovpjrwv kat KopyBdvrwv yéverw kat Ocoyoviay, érn mevraxurxidia
*Apyots vavrnyiav te, Kat “Idcovos eis KéAxous drdrdovy, ery
eLaxurxidua wevtakdow. cuvéeypaye S€ kai xatadoyddnv Iepi bvorov,
Kat THS év Kpyty mwoXcreias: kat Ilepit Mivw Kai “PadapdvOvos, eis ern
tetpakirxidia, idpicaro S kai wap ’AOnvaios 75 tepdy TOV cEepvOV
Gedy, &s pyor AdBwv 6 *Apyeios év tH Tlepi rounrov. A€yerar dé
kat mpotos oikias Kal dypovs KaOnpat, Kal iepa ispicarba. cioi &
ot pay KownOnvar adrsv éyovow, GAAA xpdvov Tia exraTHTaL,
aocxodotpevov rept piloropiav. éperar 8 adrod Kal erurtoAy mpos
YAwva tiv vopobérnv, mepiexovoea woditeiav Hv Suera~e Kpyot Mivas.
XX “YOUR OWN POETS” 249
dAAd Anpjtpios 6 Méyvyns ev Tots Trept Opaoviperv TouTav TE Ka
cvyypapéwv Suehey xewv metpara THV emurToAny ws veapay, kal pr}
7H Kpyntixcy dovy YEypappevny, °"ArOi8s 5é, Kai Tabry ved.
None of these writings is fully extant, and it is not clear how many The
of the titles are alternative names for the same books. The fragments fhe cro bg
which remain are collected in Diels, Fragmenten der Vorsokratiker, ii. 1?,
pp. 489 ff. (cf. also O. Kern, De Theogontis Orphicis, pp. 62 ff.). Diels is
inclined to postulate only two works, one in verse called Ocoyovia 7)
Kpyrixa 7) xpnopot, and one in prose called Kafapyot. H. Demoulin
thinks that hardly any of the fragments are genuine. Probably he is
right, but the point of importance is that a volume of literature rightly
or wrongly ascribed to Epimenides was extant in the first century and
that this literature included works about Minos. The quotation from
Diogenes implies that one (about Minos and Rhadamanthus) was in
verse and another (the Constitution of Minos) in prose.
The importance of these observations is due to the discovery of the Isho‘dad.
following passage in the recently published commentary of Isho‘dad:
‘This, ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; and this, ‘ As
certain of your own sages have said, We are his offspring.’ Paul takes
both of these from certain heathen poets. Now about this, ‘In him we
live,’ etc. ; because the Cretans said as truth about Zeus, that he was a
lord; he was lacerated by a wild boar and buried; and behold! his
grave is known amongst us; so therefore Minos, son of Zeus, made a
laudatory speech on behalf of his father; and he said in it, ‘ The Cretans
carve a Tomb for thee, O holy and high! liars, evil beasts, and slow
bellies! for thou art not dead for ever; thou art alive and risen; for in
thee we live and are moved, and have our being,’ so therefore the
blessed Paul took this sentence from Minos; for he took again ‘ We are
the offspring of God’ from Aratus a poet, who wrote about God, and
about the seven [planets] and the twelve [signs]; saying, ‘From God we
begin, from the Lord of heaven, that is, Zeus; for all markets, and seas,
and havens are filled with his name; and also in every place, all we men
are in want of him, because we are his offspring; and he out of his
goodness giveth good signs to us and to all men. He moves us to
come forward to work; and he ordains all that is visible and invisible ;
and because of this we all worship him and say, Hail to thee, our
Father, wonderful and great !’” (Horae Semiticae, x. 4, p. xiv.).
It is probable that this was taken by Isho‘dad from Theodore of
Mopsuestia who was one of the chief sources which he used, and this
hypothesis is supported by a quotation from the Gannat Busamé which
preserves the Nestorian tradition based largely on Theodore, and repeats
the same story about Minos. (See Rendel Harris in Mrs. Gibson’s
edition of Isho‘dad, Horae Semiticae, x. p. xiii, and Expositor, Oct. 1906.)
Neither Isho‘dad nor the Gannat mention Epimenides ; Isho‘dad indeed
says that the author of the poem was Minos, but they prove that the
phrase “for in him we live and move and have our being” came from
the same poem as the description of the Cretans as liars, evil beasts, and
slow bellies ; and concerning this latter verse, Clement of Alexandria
Conclusions.
250 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
testifies that it was taken from a poem of Epimenides the Cretan. For
in Stromata I xiv. 59. 1 he says: pact de "EAAnves pera ye ‘Opdéa kat
Aivov kat rods wahavordrous rapa opio. moras ért copie TpoTovs
OavparOnvat Tovs erred. Tous erikAnOevras coors, Gv técoapes . .
Tov O& €Bdopov of pev TlepiavSpov elvan Aéyourw Tov KopivOov, ote
°"Avaxapow Tov UKvOny, ot be ‘Emupevidny Tov Kpjijra [dv “EAAnvikov
oide mpopyrny,| ob pepvynrat 6 dda-rohos IlatAos ev TH mpods Titov
érurtoAy, A€ywv obrws* “ etrév Tis EE adbtav dios tpopyrys obTws*
Kpiares det Yetorat, xaxd Onpia, yaorépes apyat*
Kal 1) paptupia airn éeotiv ddnOys.” This statement is also repeated
by Jerome and Chrysostom in their commentaries on Titus.
Combining the testimony of Isho‘dad and Clement, it seems clear that
they referred the two quotations to a poem of Epimenides, and its
attribution to Minos by Isho‘dad is explained by the statement in
Diogenes Laertius that Epimenides wrote about Minos. Probably Minos
was introduced as a speaker in the Kpyruxd.
This evidence seems sufficient to justify the statement that “we live
and move and have our being” is a reference to Epimenides. It is true
that as it stands in Acts this passage is not an hexameter, but it is
possible that the metrical form has been lost in the course of. trans-
mission, and a very slight change suffices to restore it. Rendel Harris,
for instance, reconstructed the four lines of the poem as follows :
TipBov érextivavTo oéGev, Kidurte, peyiore,
Kpjres, det petdorar, kaka Onpia, yaorépes apyai:
> \ 7, > ? / 4 X\ > 7
addrAa od ¥ od OvicKets, EoTynKas yap (wds aici:
> * A A XX Vd > OX \ > 7
év yap vol (Opev, kat KivipeO” nde Kal exper.
A. B. Cook has conjectured a somewhat different Greek (see Zeus, i.
p- 664) which is as follows :
gol pev érexTHvavtTo Tdov, wavuméeptate Saipov,
An Bea Led \ Y , > v
Kpres det Yetorat, xaxd Onpia, yaorépes dpyai
> \ \ > ‘ /, / A \, ¢ SF:
GAA yap ov ad Odves, (des S€ Kal toracat aici:
év gol yap (Gpev kal KiveduerOa Kat eipuev.
The point is of no importance, but I think they are both wrong in
their first lines, for Chrysostom (Com. on Titus, i. 12) gives
kat yap tdpov, © ava, oeio
Kpjres érextivavto: ob & ov Oaves: eoot yap aii.
There is no reason for emending this. It is true that Chrysostom is
quoting from Callimachus (Hymn to Zeus, lines 7 and 8); but in the
light of Clement’s evidence I think that Callimachus must himself
have been quoting .Epimenides, or in view of the extremely doubtful
chronology of the poems of ‘ Epimenides’ it is possible that ‘ Epimenides’
was quoting Callimachus. It is conceivable that the Epistle to Titus
is quoting Callimachus, as Chrysostom says, not Epimenides, as Clement
says, but scarcely possible that Clement did not know that Epimenides
wrote thus.
ae
XXI ARTEMIS OF EPHESUS 251
Some scholars, however, for whose opinion I have much respect,
think that Isho‘dad has confused Callimachus and Epimenides, mainly
on the ground that the poets would not have used exactly the same
language. Personally I feel less inclined to discount the evidence of
Isho‘dad, but it is worth remembering that the large amount of quotation
from, or reference to, Greek poets in Paul’s speech at Athens is more
important to the student of Acts than the exact identification of the
writers. The really significant thing is that Greek quotations seem
here to play the same part as the Old Testament in speeches to Jews
or in a synagogue. (See further Additional Note 32.)
It is also possible, though perhaps less probable, that the passage from
Epimenides had passed into a commonplace which had lost its metrical
form.
One further point, however, calls for attention. Can it be an accident
that the inscription “to an unknown God” which Paul takes, as it were,
for his text (see Addit. Note 19) suggests more than anything else the
story of the visit paid to Athens by Epimenides the Cretan, and that
the striking phrase “for in him we live and move and have our being”
seems to be a reminiscence from a poem by Epimenides, from which yet
another quotation is found in the probably spurious epistle of Paul to
Titus ?
That at least the literature of Epimenides was known in the Pauline
circle, including the authors of Acts and of the Pastoral Epistles, seems
almost certain. Assuming that Paul really delivered this speech before
the Areopagus, an attractive picture might be drawn of how the connexion
of Epimenides with the altar to the unknown God led up to a quotation
from the poem of Epimenides. But obviously much the same sequence of
thought can be attributed to the writer of Acts if the speech be regarded
as his composition. If Titus were a genuine Pauline epistle the matter
might be different, but it probably is not.
Nott XXI. Artemis oF EPHESUS
By Lizy Ross TayLor
Demetrius’s claim (Acts xix. 27) that Artemis of Ephesus was wor- Acts xix. 27.
shipped in all Asia and throughout the inhabited world was not exag-
gerated. Not only was the cult the most important of the province of
Asia: it had a fame throughout the Greek and Roman world that
probably no divinity except Apollo of Delphi could surpass. The city’s
great goddess, frequently given epithets like peydAn, peyiotn,) with
her temple, which was numbered among the seven wonders of the world,
was Ephesus’s chief claim to pre-eminence, and the Ephesians jealously
guarded her fame.
1 Compare the Ephesian oath in Xenophon of Ephesus, Hphesiaca i. 11,
Tiv warpiov Nuiv Oedv Thy peyddnv E*eciwv “Apreuw.
The goddess
of Ephesus.
The Temple.
252 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
The origin of the goddess at Ephesus is shrouded in obscurity. She
seems to have been a form of the great Asiatic mother-goddess, a divinity
of fertility who, before the Ionian colonists came, was already worshipped
without temple or image at the site of the later Artemisium beside the
ancient harbour of Ephesus. It is likely that the Ionian settlers gave
the goddess her earliest temple and image and her name Artemis, which
she acquired as an adjunct to the local name Ephesia that she always
retained. With the name Artemis she also had attached to her many
of the legends of the maiden huntress. Ephesus even claimed to be the
birthplace of Artemis and Apollo, though Apollo had no real share in
the cult at the shrine.?
There had been earlier structures before the great Artemisium was
begun in the middle of the sixth century. By that time the shrine had
attained such fame that the whole of Asia is said to have shared in the
expense of the splendid marble temple.* King Croesus of Lydia dedi
cated the columns, which were conspicuous because of the friezes in high
relief about their bases. The temple was of enormous proportions—
about four times the size of the Parthenon. The work on the temple
required a hundred and twenty years for its completion. The great
shrine was burned to the ground on the night of the birth of Alexander
the Great (356 B.c.).4 Immediately—again, it would seem, with the aid
of all Asia—work was begun upon a new structure even more splendid
than the earlier one. The new temple was similar in proportions to the
previous one, and it retained many of the characteristic features,
notably the frieze at the base of the columns. Fragmentary remains
of the columns of both temples are to-day preserved in the British
Museum. The new temple, richly adorned with works of the greatest
1 On this name see Jessen, s.v. Ephesia, Pauly-Wissowa, 2754.
2 For the close relation between Artemis of Ephesus and Apollo of Claros
see Picard, Ephése et Claros, recherches sur les sanctuaires et les cultes de V’ Ionie
du Nord, Paris, 1922. Picard’s study contains the most exhaustive collection
of the material available on Ephesian Artemis. See also Jessen, s.v. Ephesia, 2,
Pauly-Wissowa. For the inscriptions see Hicks in Ancient Greek Inscriptions
in the British Museum, iii., and Heberdey and Keil in Forschungen in Ephesos,
i.-iii. New inscriptions are published from time to time in the Jahreshefte des
6st. arch. Inst. Important for the temple of Artemis is the edict (ibid. xxiii.,
1926, 282-284) of the proconsul Paullus Fabius Persicus dating from the reign
of Claudius. It shows the activity of Roman authorities in attempting to
prevent graft in connexion with the Artemisium.
Literary evidence for Artemis of Ephesus is abundant from Herodotus
down to the writers of the Empire. The fullest material is found in Strabo,
xiv. 639-642, and Achilles Tat. vii. 13-viii. 14. The temple of Artemis was
excavated under the auspices of the British Museum (see below), the city, on
the site to which Lysimachus moved it a mile away, by the Austrian Archaeo-
logical Institute. On the topography of Ephesus see Biirchner, s.v. Ephesos,
Pauly-Wissowa, and G. Radet, Hphesiaca, i. and ii.
3 Pliny, NV.H. xvi. 213; Livy i. 45.
4 Plut. Alex. 3.
a
XXI ARTEMIS. OF EPHESUS 253
painters and sculptors of the Greek world, had a place in practically
every ancient list of the seven wonders of the world.
Although the votive offerings of the early period show Artemis under The
a wide variety of types*—nude, draped, seated and standing figures {en or ae
with many attributes—the cult image was a stiff upright figure which soddess.
resembled the trunk of a tree out of which the earliest image seems to
have been fashioned. In the later period the erect figure was completely
covered with a symbolic adornment which suggested the goddess’s
character as a composite divinity of fertility. Just when the adornment
became fixed in the type under which Ephesian Artemis was widely
represented in imperial times cannot be ascertained ; the earliest dated
representation of the type that we have is found on cistophoric coins
of Ephesus and Tralles of about 133 3B.c.2 It shows her wearing a
modius and veil on her head; her figure is bound from waist to ankles
in shroudlike bands; and the upper part of her body from waist to
neck is covered with breasts. About her head and among the bands
of the lower part of her body are representations of animals and birds.
The entire adornment seems to have been superimposed on the image.
The head-dress, the many breasts, and the bands about the body
have all been associated with other eastern representations of the mother
goddess. They are indications of the Oriental character which Ephesian
Artemis always retained. Further indications of the same character are
to be found in the priesthoods and festivals of the shrine.‘
The chief priest of Ephesian Artemis, like other priests of the Asiatic The priest
mother goddess, was a eunuch. During the period of Persian power % 4™tems.
he acquired the Persian title Megabyzos, which he afterwards retained.
Strabo’s account (xiv. 641) has raised some questions : tepéas = evvov-
Xovs efxov, os éexdAovv MeyaPufous, kat Gdhaxdbev petovres det
Tivas agiovs THs Touatrys Tpootacias, Kat ajyov €v Ti peyary
ovviepac Gat de Tovrous expyv mapbévous, vuvi d¢ 7a pev puddrrerat TOV
vopipwv, Ta 8 irtov. Picard * had drawn the conclusion from this state-
ment that in Strabo’s day there was a whole college of Megabyzoi who
served the goddess in place of the single chief priest of an earlier time,
but Strabo’s words are not definite enough to make the suggestion
certain. Picard also holds that under the Empire there was a single
high priestess who took the pre-eminent place in the cult which the
Megabyzos had previously held, when only one priest of that title served
at a time. But though there are imperial inscriptions which mention
1 On the temple see Biirchner, op. cit.; Picard, op. cit. chap. i.; D. C.
Hogarth, The Archaic Artemisia (British Museum, Excavations at Ephesus
(1908)).
* See Picard, chap. vii., with his criticisms of Hogarth’s conclusions as to
the early type of the goddess.
3 Head, A History of the Coinage of Ephesus (reprinted from a3 Num.
Chron. 1880), iv. p. 11.
4 The eastern character of the goddess has been ably demonstrated by
Picard.
5 Chap. iii.
_ 254 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
The
Koomnrecpac.
The Essenes.
veorrotot.
Sacrifices to
Artemis.
Asylum for
fugitives.
vewKdpos.
individual priestesses, there is no proof that they served independently
of other priestesses. The organization of the hierarchy must remain in
doubt. The maiden priestesses, whom Plutarch compared to the Vestals,*
held office for a temporary period, after which they might marry.
The priestly organization included a large number of officers, both
male and female. Among the most distinguished were the xoopnrteipat,
matrons who had charge of the sacred adornment of the goddess. The
office, like that of the maiden priesthood, was often hereditary in
families.* The inscriptions record the titles of a number of officers who
were associated with the great festival of Artemis—ypvaodpdpor, Seurvo-
dpor, évOvuiatpou, iepoxnpuxes, etc.
Associated with the cult was also a group called the Essenes who
lived as a celibate brotherhood during the year of service. The city
appointed officers called vewroia., later veoro.oi, two from each city
tribe to act as temple wardens. They made provisions for all repairs
and all dedications in the temenos of the goddess.
Sacrifices to Ephesian Artemis were made chiefly with food, libations,
and incense, less often, it would seem, with victims. The chief festival
of the goddess was in the month which the Ephesians named Artemisium,
because Artemis was said to have been born in it. The most important
feature of the festival was a great procession in which all the cult objects
of the shrine were carried. For this festival, and for the equestrian,
gymnastic, and musical contests that accompanied it, all the Ionians of
Asia were wont to come together‘; following the ceremony there were
often deliberations of a political nature.
One of the great prerogatives which the Artemisium shared with
other shrines was the right of providing asylum for fugitives, and even
in certain cases for runaway slaves.’ Many of the latter passed into the
possession of the goddess. The right, which had been extended by Mark
Antony, had been abused to such an extent that it was investigated in
the Roman senate in the reign of Tiberius. At that time the repre-
sentatives of the Ephesians appeared in the senate with the delegates of
other cities to plead their rights. Their pre-eminence is indicated by
the fact that they were heard before the delegates/of the other cities.
Another prominent feature of the Artemisium was its importance in
financial affairs. Besides caring for the great wealth of the goddess, the
temple treasury functioned as a bank. It received deposits from kings,
cities, and private individuals, and it lent money. Aristides refers to it
as Tapeiov kowwdv Agias.?
In Acts xix. 35 the ypappateds of Ephesus calls the city ‘sacristan’
of the great Artemis (vewkdpov otocav Tis peydAns’Apréusdos). This is
1 See the important inscription of Salutaris, Forschungen in Ephesos, ii.,
No. 27, line 266.
2 Mor. 795 B.
3 Cf. CIG. ii. 3002 yévos Exovcay dvwhev lepevdv cal Koounrerpav.
4 Thue. iii. 104. 5 Achil. Tat. vii. 13.
® Tac. Ann. iii. 60-61. 7 Or. xlii. 522 3.
——
XXI ARTEMIS OF EPHESUS 255
the earliest known case of a vewkdpos 7éA1s and the only instance where
the word is applied to the cult of Artemis. Later the phrase is common
in its application to cities possessing league temples of the imperial cult
in Asia. A city was said to be vewxdpos or Sis, or even tpls vewKdpos
tov Y<Bucrdy, according to the number of temples of the imperial cult
which it possessed.1 It is not unlikely that the phrase originated in
Ephesus as a description of the city’s relation to Artemis.
The fear which the success of Paul’s preaching aroused among the Demetrius.
craftsmen is of great interest. There are many references to images of
the goddess in the inscriptions,? and many votive offerings have been
found in the excavations. But nothing so far discovered corresponds
to the vaods dpyvpots Apréuidos. Hicks made the tempting suggestion
that in the description of Demetrius, Aypajtpws yap tis dvdpart,
apyvpokdros, Towwv vaods apyvpovs ’Apréutdos, the writer of Acts was
making a mistaken amplification of the word veorods which he found in
his source and failed to understand. A Demetrius who was an eponymous
veoro.ds of his year—that is the first veoro.ds of the Ephesian tribe—
is named in an inscription which Hicks dates about the middle of the first
century after Christ. He suggests that this veowouds may be identical
with the Demetrius of Acts. He would still retain the association of
Demetrius, who was by profession a silversmith, with the image makers,
assuming that he made not vaoé but silver images of the goddess such
as are frequently mentioned in the inscriptions.
If we may trust the account in Acts, the cult of Artemis was in The
eclipse as a result of Paul’s preaching, and the Ephesians were trying ieee
to guard the prestige of their divinity. About a century later the cult 4-D. 160.
of the goddess was again on the wane, and we find the Ephesian senate
taking active measures to restore the goddess to her former prominence.‘
Again, it was probably the growing power of Christianity which caused
the decline of Ephesian Artemis. The decree, dating from the year 160,
reads as follows:
edJofev Tijs TpoOTNS Kat pel yiorrns patplowéXews tis “Agias Kai dis
vewk[dpou TOV _2Bdjotov kal prroreBdorou "Edeioiwy réAews TH
BopAy Kat T~ SH * mept dv eiony[nrac . . AlaPépros "Apowvos
prrocéBarros, 6 ypapplareds Tod Shjpov, dreyiburav dé of o7[plarnyot
Tis ToAews idocéeBacror* [Ered 1) rlpoertdca ths roAEws pdv
1 See W. Biichner, De Neocoria, Giessen, 1888. For the Jews as vewxédpor of
their god see Josephus, Bell. Iud. v. 9. 4, § 283.
2 Notably in the Salutaris inscription mentioned above.
3 See Hicks, Hxpositor, i. (1890) pp. 401 ff.; against his suggestion see
Ramsay, tbid. ii. pp. 1 ff., and Hicks’s reply, ibid. pp. 144 ff. Cf. Picard,
pp. 127. For the inscription of Demetrius see Ancient Greek Insoriptions in
the British Museum, iii. 578 and p. 209.
4 Ibid. No. 4828, p. 144 (=Dittenberger, Sylloge®, 867). See Hicks’s dis-
cussion there and his suggestion that the Salutaris inscription, which is practic-
ally contemporary with Pliny’s letters about the Christians, is to be associated
with “a wave of reaction against the advance of Christianity in Asia Minor.”
The
Asiarchs in
literature
and
inscriptions.
The League
of Asia.
256 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
Geds “Apres od pdvov] év TH eavTAs watpidu atipara, jv a[AAwv
dracav moAewv| évdoforépay Sida THs idias Oevdrynt[os meroinxer,
GJAXa rapa ["EAAnotv re xJat [B]apBaplolis, dlore TOXA Jaxod dveio Oat
adThns idpd Te Kal Tyas: aga 5 eorw) a) TE cidptr Gan Kat
Boports [airy dvaxeio Bau Sia] Tas Ur avrijs _Yevopevas éevapyets
ex paveias} Kat touTo Se peyurrov TOU Tept adTny od Bac |pot cor
TEKHpLOV, TO ETwvupov adt[js] elvar pHva Kadovpevov rap Alliv pev
"Apt[emwrrjova mapa S& Maxeddow Kat trois Aowrois Overw] ois
c a XN a > > aA / > 7 > = \
EAAnvixois cat tais ev adtois méXdeody] “Aprepiowv, ev @ pvt
7 7 c fal s >
mavnyepes Te Kat tep[o]unviat eritehovvrat, Suadepovtws Se ev
[77] PET EPS monet TH Tpopy Tips idias Oeod THS “Egfecials: porn Kov
de eivas Tyotpevos 6 S7jpos [6 ‘E]periov éXov Tov paiva TOV éexdvupov
Tov Oeiov dlvdpuaros civar iepdv Kal dvaxeioOar tH Oed [e]Soxipacev
S[Ja rovde tod Yydiopatos [katacrno]ac tHv wept adtod OpnoKeiay *
516 [Se56x Oat iep}ov tov pava rdv *Aprewiordva ei[var wacas Tas
.3 7 + Wa tas > ad la bX ée ” ny ¢€ ‘ \ ‘
npépas, ayer Oar Sé ex avtais phv[a dAov 8c] érovs tas éoptas Kal THY
tov Aptepliciwv maviylupw Kai Tas tepounvias, are TOD pnvds S[Aov
dvakeipélvov TH Oeg' ottw yap ert 7d apewov THs [Bcod Tiuwpev]ns
c / € “a / XN > , > a
n rods HplOv e]vdogorépa re Kal evd[Larpoverrépa] cis Td[v aralvTa
Siapeve? y[pdvov].
Notre XXII. Tur Asrarcus
By Lizy Ross Taytor
Apart from the reference in Acts, there is slight evidence in literary
sources for the Asiarchs. In the time of Augustus they are mentioned by
Strabo, and in the reign of Antoninus Pius or Marcus Aurelius by the writer
of the letter of the Smyrneans on the martyrdom of Polycarp. They are
further known from several references in late juridical sources. On the
other hand there is a large amount of inscriptional evidence for them.
Their names and their titles are recorded on numerous coins and stones of
the cities of Asia. Moreover, similar titles like Galatarch, Bithyniarch,
Lyciarch from the neighbouring provinces throw light on their character.
The records of the Lyciarchs are particularly significant because they are
abundant, and many of them are early in date.
The Asiarchs were the foremost men of the province of Asia, chosen
from the wealthiest and the most aristocratic inhabitants of the province.
Strabo (xiv. 649) describes them as of mpwrevovtes Kata TiHv érapxiav,
and the numerous honours claimed by the Asiarchs in cities and in the
provinces bear out his words. They were holders or former holders of a
yearly office in the league that was formed by the cities of Asia. Every
important city claimed Asiarchs among its citizens, and Ephesus would
probably have had several in the time of Paul.
The league of the cities of Asia, like other Greek leagues, was a religious
organization with certain political functions. It probably existed in
republican times and was active in the erection of monuments to the
XXII THE ASIARCHS 257
goddess Roma and the Roman proconsuls. The first definite reference to it
as a league (70 Kouwvdv Tov dd THs ’Acias “EXAjvwv) comes from the early
days of Mark Antony’s power in the East. In 29 B.c., after Octavian’s
final victory over Antony, the league secured permission from the new
ruler to erect a temple to him in common with the goddess Roma at
Pergamum and to institute quinquennial games there in honour of the
new cult.?, Henceforth the chief purpose of the league was the cult of
the reigning emperor and with him of the goddess Roma, who, however,
speedily acquired a secondary position. The league in Asia, in many ways
a prototype of the leagues formed in other provinces, became a valuable
instrument of the provincial governors in securing loyalty to Roman rule.
It maintained the cult of Roma and Augustus in Pergamum, and its repre-
sentatives assembled each year in one of the chief cities of the province to
celebrate the emperor’s birthday as a festival of the league. Among the
cities Ephesus ranked with Smyrna and Pergamum as the most important.
In addition to the shrine in Pergamum, new league temples of the imperial
cult were built in other cities. Under Tiberius a temple was constructed
in Smyrna, and under either Claudius or Nero a third shrine was built
in Ephesus. This shrine may have been in existence when Paul was in
Ephesus. Later other temples were built, and Ephesus itself eventually
had two more league shrines.
From Strabo’s account of the neighbouring Lycian league* we can Lycian
perhaps form some idea of the method by which the league elected 18"
its officers. In Lycia representatives of the twenty-three cities came
together in the city agreed upon and cast their votes for the Lyciarch and
the other chief officers of the association (4A Aa dpxal ait Tob oveTHpaTOS).
Each representative had one, two, or three votes, the number being
determined by the size of the city which had sent him. If the Asiarchs
were elected by a similar system, cities like Pergamum, Smyrna, and
Ephesus would have disposed of more votes than the smaller cities and
therefore would have had a better chance of securing the election of their
candidates.
1 See the beginning of Mark Antony’s letter to the League, preserved in
the papyrus published by Kenyon, Classical Review, vii. p. 476: Mdpxos ’Avrwr.os
abtoxpadtwp Tpiav avipGy Snuoclwy mpayyudrwv amoKaracTdoews, TH Kowa THY
amd Tis "Aclas ‘ENAjvwv, xalpev.
2 Dio li. 20. 7-9 rots dé 6h E€vors, “EAAnvds opas émixadéoas, éavT@ Tuva,
Tors wév ’Aotavots év Ilepydum rots 5¢ BuOuvots év Nixoundela, remevioa érérpepe
. kal €\aBov Kal of Ilepyaunvol rov dyava tov iepdy dvouacuévoy ert TH Tod
vaod abrod Tin moveiv.
3 Strabo xiv. 664-65 elol 5¢ rpets cal elkoor ores al Tis Whpov meréxovcat *
ouvépxovra. dé é& éxdorys mébdews els Kowvdv cuvédpiov, Hy Av Soximdowor modu
Eddpuevor* Tav dé modrewy ai wéyiorar mev Tpidv Whpww early éxdorn xupla, al de
péoa Sveiv, al 5 ddANae pias * dvd Abyov Sé Kal Tas elaopopds elopépovor Kal Tas
Gddas Necroupylas.. . . év 6€ 7G cuvedply mpBrov pev AvKidpyns aipetrat, efr’
Gra dpxal ai rod cvorjpatos. Sikacripid Te amodelkvuTar Kowy. . . dpolws de
kai Oixkacral kal dpxovres ava Adbyov rats Whdos €& éExdorns mpoxerplfovrac
méNews.
VOL. V iS)
The dura-
tion of the
Asiarchate,
The High
Priest of
Asia.
The identity
of the high
priests and
Asiarchs.
258 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY —= nom
The Asiarch held office for a year. The title dovpyns may denote a
man in his year of office or may, like any of the titles familiar in the Roman
cursus honorum, indicate that the office had been held in the past. In one
case former service is clearly indicated by the aorist participle do.apyjoas.
(In the neighbouring Lycian league Av«.apxjoas is fairly common, though
Av«.idpx7s also seems often to refer to a former holder of the office.) The
office might be held more than once, a fact that is clearly indicated by
occurrences of the title doudépyns 8. In each year several Asiarchs were
appointed. There was probably one who served for the entire league and
there was one who functioned at the league temples in each of the cities.
Thus we find titles like dovdpyyns vadv tov ev Lpipvyn, dodpxys vadv
Tav ev Ederw.}
After the league of Asia began to devote itself to the imperial cult, the
chief officer of the league was the high priest of the emperor, dpyxvepeds
Acias. In time several high priests were appointed in each year, one
presumably as chief priest of the whole league and one to officiate at the
league temples of each city.? Aelius Aristides, the rhetorician, writing about
the middle of the second century, describes his election as Archiereus of
Asia (Oratio Sacra, iv. 26. 101-104, ed. Keil). After his name had been
presented to the assembly by the Smyrneans, he says that he got third or
fourth place in the voting, but the place secured his election, presumably
as high priest of the league temples in one of the cities. The titles of the
Archiereis are closely analogous to those of the Asiarchs. Thus we find
the simple title dpyepeds or dpxvepeds "Acias, dpxtepeds B to indicate a
second term of office, an isolated case of the aorist participle dpyvepardpevos
to denote the completion of the term of active service, and the fuller titles
which indicate the association with the league temples of a particular city :
dpxvepevs "Acias vaod tod ev “Edéow, dpxtepeds "Avias vadv tov év
Zpupvy.
The similarity of titles in itself suggests that at least for the second
century and later, the period to which the majority of the inscriptions
belong, dovdpxns and apxvepeds *Acias were alternate titles for the same
office, the high priesthood of the league of Asia, but there is also more
definite evidence to support the identification. In the theatre of Ephesus
were discovered the following inscriptions: (IJ.B.M. 604)... dywvoGe-
tovvtos T[B.] lovAiov “Pyyeivov dpx[tlepéws B vadv trav év “Ede ow].
(605) . . . dywvo(A)erobvros 8? aidvos Tif. lovd. “Pyyetvou doudpxov
B vaav trav év ’Edéow. The similarity in the two titles held by
the same man is striking, and it requires a forced interpretation of
the evidence to assume, as some scholars have, that Julius Reginus
held twice two separate offices of the league at the temples in Ephesus,
The titles Archiereus and Asiarch are also both given to a certain
1 See the list of Asiarchs and Archiereis published by Chapot, La Province
romaine proconsulaire d’Asie, pp. 482 ff.; cf. Ruggiero, Dizion. Epigr. i. pp.
728 fi.
2 See the important article of A. Stein, ‘Zur sozialen Stellung der provinzialen
Oberpriester,’ "Exiripfiov Heinrich Swoboda dargebracht (1927), pp. 300-311.
XXII THE ASIARCHS 259
Philippos of Tralles, and here again there have been efforts to explain the
evidence on the assumption that there were two different offices and two
men of this name. In the letter of the Smyrneans on the martyrdom of
Polycarp, dating from the middle of the second century, we learn that
the people of Smyrna, eager for the death of Polycarp, appealed to the
Asiarch Philippos (rdv dovdpxnv Pidurrov) to loose a lion upon him.
The Asiarch refused because the games were at an end, and so Polycarp
was burned alive. In the statement of the time when the martyrdom
took place we find the words éwi dpxvepéws Pidirrov Tpaddravod.~
Moreover, an inscription recording a Philippos of Tralles as Asiarch, and
another mentioning a man of the same name as Archiereus of Asia,
are preserved from a date that seems to correspond with Polycarp’s
martyrdom. (See Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp,
Letter to the Smyrneans, part ii. vol. ii. sect. ii. pp. 947 ff. For the
inscriptions see Dittenberger, OGIS. 498, 499, and the discussions of
date and identity there.)
A further indication of the identity of the two offices is found in the The high
fact that the wife of the Asiarch sometimes has the title dpysépeva, high Ptestess-
priestess, an office that was the special prerogative of the wife of the
high priest of the province (CIG. 3677): . IAo(riov) Adp. I'pdrov,
dorudpxov kat “lovAias Avp. Age Aemeobdnas THS ‘yvvatkds nae
apxvepeias.t Another record is even more significant (CIG. 3324):
Avp. Zijvev cai M. KA, *lovAvav7, dovdpyau Sis, . . . Here husband aa
wife are both called Asiarch, and scholars opposed to the identification of
Asiarch and Archiereus of Asia have found no explanation of the title but
have been forced to assume a stone-cutter’serror. Asa parallel for Asiarch
as a title for a woman (there is no other instance of it in Asia), we may
note that in Lycia the high priestess of the league is more than once
referred to as Avx.apxiooa. In this connexion a law of Constantine,
quoted in the Codex Justin. v. 27. 1, is of interest. The object of the
law was to make sure that the high priest should have a worthy wife.
It forbade anyone enjoying the ornamenta of a priesthood to claim,
as legitimate, children borne to him by a woman of low birth, and it
explains the priesthood by offices analogous to the Asiarchate—id est
Phoenicarchiae vel Syriarchiae.
The office of Asiarch is described as a priesthood in two other juridical
sources. One of them is the following passage on immunities quoted from
Modestinus in the Digesta (xxvii. 1. 6): EOvovs i iepapxia. (the word is corrupt:
iepapxia is Mommsen’s reading, iepwotvn Politianus) | olov dorvap xia
BiBvvap xia kammadoxapxia TapeXet aXevroupynoiav aro er iTpoTrav,
ToUT éoTw ews adv dpxy. An even more explicit statement that the
Asiarch was priest of the province comes from the scholia to the Basilika
(ed. Heimbach, iii. 681) ot iepeis Tov erapyxiGv ToT éoTiV dowdpyat Kal
ot Aouroi.
The evidence thus indicates that from the second century Asiarch
1 See also J.G.R. iv. 1233. Other instances are cited by Stein, op. cit. p. 303,
n. 6, but most of them do not seem to apply.
Modestinus.
Conclu-
sions.
Strabo.
260 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
and Archiereus of Asia were alternate titles for the same office.t But
at an earlier time there is reason to believe that Asiarch was a more
inclusive title than Archiereus. In the time of Paul there were two or
perhaps three league temples in the province of Asia, and therefore
presumably three or four high priests were chosen in each year. It is
quite possible that there was at the time a considerable group of holders
and former holders of the high priesthood in a city of the importance of
Ephesus, and the passage in Acts seems to imply that the Asiarchs were
fairly numerous there. But in the days of Augustus when Strabo wrote
there was only the league temple at Pergamum, and there could not have
been more than two high priests chosen in each year. How then can
Strabo’s statement (xiv. 649) about another city, Tralles, be explained ?
cuvoikeitat b€ KaA@s et tis GAAH TOV Kata THY "Aciav trd cirdépwv
avOpwrwv, kat dei tives €€ adris eiowv ot mpwrevorTes KaTA THY ETapXiav
ovs dovdpxas kadovowv. In the intense competition between the cities of
the time even the wealth of Tralles cannot account for the success of the
city in securing the priesthood a number of times. If, as in Lycia, there
was a proportional system in the number of votes allotted to each city,
Tralles would hardly have had the maximum number of votes. When
early in the reign of Tiberius (Tac. Ann. iv. 55 ff.) there was a contest
among eleven cities of Asia for the site of the second league temple, the
Tralliani were passed over as parum validi.
Moreover, Strabo presents a further difficulty. Among the Asiarchs
he mentions a certain Pythodorus, a supporter of Pompey, who later had
his property confiscated by Caesar, but succeeded eventually in regaining
his wealth. Continuing from the passage quoted Strabo says: dv IlvOddwpds
te hv avip Nucaeds 7d €& apxijs, exetore O€ pera BeBnKws dia. THY eripdverar,
kai év TH mpds Lloparjuov piria Siarpéerwv per dALywv' wepreBEBAnTO Se
Kat ovoiav BaotAtkny rAedrwv 7) SurxiAiwy Taddvtwr, Hv trd Kaicapos
Tov Oeod mpabeioav Sia riv mpds Lloprjov diriav eEwvynrdpevos odx
qTTw Tois mat KaréAure, . . . ODTOS d} KAP’ Huas jKpace. Although
it is possible that Pythodoros did not hold the office of Asiarch until
after the cult of the emperor was organized in 29 B.c., it is more likely
from Strabo’s words that he was Asiarch in the time of Pompey. It is
1 From a late fourth-century inscription in which the producer of the
quinquennial games in Asia is called Asiarch, A. Schulten (Jahreshefte des dst.
arch. Inst. ix., 1906, pp. 66 ff.) concludes that the Asiarchate “ bezeichnet die
alle vier Jahre zu dem Amt des Provinzialpriesters hinzutretende Function des
Spielgebers.” This view, previously advanced by Monceaux, De communi
Asiae, p. 56, is refuted for the later period by the fact that the Asiarchs are
much more numerous in inscriptions than the Archiereis. See Chapot, op. cit.
p. 479, n. 2. For the early empire see the discussion of Tralles above. It is
impossible to base conclusions for the early empire on the late rescript of
Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian which Schulten thinks settles the whole
question. It belongs to a time when poverty made the onus of public office
a serious problem, and it perhaps indicates that at the time Asiarchs were
chosen only for the occasion of the quinquennial games. Even in the rescript
there is no reason to suppose that Asiarch is not equivalent to Archiereus.
XXII THE ASIARCHS . 261
noteworthy that, though not a native of Tralles, Pythodoros was named
by Cicero as one of the most important citizens of Tralles in the year 59
B.C. (Pro Flacco 52, “‘ Ubi erant illi Pythodori, Aetidemi, Lepsiones, ceteri
homines apud nos noti, inter suos nobiles ?”’).
If as early as the time of Augustus the city of Tralles always had The earlier
Asiarchs in its population, and if one of them probably belongs to a time P°°%
before the cult of the emperor was established, it is obvious that the
Asiarchs and the Archiereis of Asia had not yet come to be identical,
as they seem to have been at least from the second century on. It
would seem that the Asiarchs were more numerous than the Archiereis,
and that they were known in the province before the imperial cult made
necessary the appointment of a high priest. My explanation (based
originally on a suggestion made to me by Professor Allen B. West) is that
from the Asiarchs designated in each year as the foremost men of Asia one
was chosen to act as high priest of the emperor, and then, as the temples
of the league were built, one was selected to serve at the league temples in
each city. Thus all Archiereis would have been Asiarchs, but all the
Asiarchs would not have acquired the distinction of the high priesthood.
As the number of league temples grew, in time there would have been a
priesthood for every Asiarch, and the two terms would thus come to be
identical in meaning. It is possible that this was already the case in the
time of Paul, or at least in that of Luke.
Even before the imperial cult was established, the Asiarchs may in fact
have had charge of league monuments, presumably shrines of Roma and of
the Roman proconsuls whose festivals and monuments persisted in Asia.
We might again use the analogy of the Lycian league, though we must use
it with caution particularly because Lycia was not yet a Roman province
when Strabo described its organization. Lycia chose only one Lyciarch a
year, an officer who, at least after the establishment of the Roman province
under Claudius, is frequently called Archiereus. But at the same time it
chose other officers (4pxat). Asia apparently called all of its chief officers
Asiarchs, and, before the imperial cult became the centre of the league,
may have placed them in charge of monuments of proconsuls like Mucius
Scaevola whom she continued later to honour.
When Asiarch and Archiereus of Asia became alternate titles for the he later
same office, there were certain distinctions in the use of the two terms. Pei:
Asiarch, because it was briefer, was preferred for the limited space of a coin.
But in formal documents dpyxepevds was the official designation of the
high priests of the emperor. It is, for instance, the term used in dating the
martyrdom of Polycarp. Asiarch, as Mommsen pointed out, is the more
popular term, used to express the pre-eminence of the office which Strabo
emphasizes. It is noteworthy that the pre-eminence of the imperial
priests is emphasized in other provinces by such expressions as tpWTos TOV
‘“EAAjvwv, mpOtos THs erapxeias (Dittenberger, OGIS. 544, 545, 652).
The compounds of «.pyeiv are very similar in the idea which they conveyed
to the popular mind. That such is the case is clear from the titles of the
high priest in the Achaean league. Under Nero he is spoken of as primus
Achaeon or 7 patos Tov am’ aiwvos (AJA., 1926, 393; I.@. iii. 805). Under
262 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
Hadrian he is called dpyvepeds kal EAAaSddpyxns, and henceforth Helladarch
is a regular adjunct of the titles of the high priest in the Achaean league.
(See Stahelin, s.v. Helladarchai, Pauly-Wissowa.) The same usage is to be
found in Galatarch as an additional title for the high priest of the league in
Galatia. In Asia, however, Asiarch and Archiereus of Asia do not occur
together as a combined title. The reason is perhaps to be found in the
fact that Asiarch was an old title, already in use before the imperial
cult was established, while probably Galatarch and certainly Helladarch
were new inventions to express the pre-eminence of the provincial
priesthood.
[On the league in Asia see Chapot, La Province romaine proconsulaire
@ Asie, pp. 454-467 ; Kornemann, s.v. Koinon, Pauly-Wissowa, Suppl. iv.
Against the identification of Asiarch and Archiereus of Asia see the
following articles in Pauly-Wissowa: Kornemann, s.v. Koinon (Suppl.
iv.); Ruge, s.v. Lycia; Brandis, s.v. Asiarch and Archiereus. See also in
Daremberg and Saglio, Perrot, s.v. Asiarches, and A. Souter in Hastings,
Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, i. pp. 102 f.
For the suggestion that the Asiarchs are Archiereis who have completed
their term of service see Guiraud, Les Assemblées provinciales dans l empire
romain (1887), pp. 97-106.
In favour of the identification of the two offices see the following
discussions : Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, S. Ignatius, 8. Polycarp,
part ii. vol. ii. sect. ii. pp. 987 ff. (ed. of 1885) (valuable because the
evidence available in 1885 is quoted in some detail); Marquardt, Rém.
Staatsverwaltung, i. pp. 513 ff.; Mommsen, Jahreshefte des dsterreich. Inst.
iii. (1900), pp. 1-8; Dittenberger, OGIS. 498, n. 3; Fougéres, Mélanges
Perrot, pp. 103-108 (a revision of the opinion expressed in his thesis,
De Lyciorum communi).
For a good summary of the evidence, which reaches no conclusion, see
Chapot, op. cit. pp. 468-489.]
Notre XXIII. Tue Micnigan Papyrus Fragment 1571
By Suva New
The codex. This single mutilated leaf of a codex of Acts has been dated as
early as the first half of the third century and as late as the end of the
fourth. In the Harvard Theological Review for January 1927 Professor
H. A. Sanders published a facsimile of the papyrus, with a reconstruction
of its contents and some discussion of its text. Since the Harvard
Theological Review is not always accessible, and because some important
suggestions have been made since Professor Sanders’s publication,’ it has
seemed desirable to print the text in this volume.
1 See especially Prof. A. C. Clark, ‘The Michigan Papyrus of Acts,’ J.7'.S.
xxix. (1927-1928), pp. 18 ff.
THE MICHIGAN PAPYRUS
263
Acts xviii. 27-xix. 6; xix. 12-16
Recto
KVL 20 Pl stisies
- « ] GTHN axaia TIOAY cyNelBarero Tats exxdAn]
28 [orJajl[s] eyTONWCe rap Toic 1oy[dacJoic AiaKlarnrey]
[xeTo] AHMOCIA AialreyouerJoc ett i[Secxvus]
XEte
[dca T]WN FPAPWN XPN [ewat] THN BEAONILos Se]
[rov m]ayAoy KaTa TH[Y diay Bov]AH[y mopev] 5
[ecOa]i E1c 1epocoAyma [ewer avtw] to [7va]
[vrocrplepein eic Tiny aca dueOwy de ra]
2 [avwrlepika mepl[n elpyetale ets epecor] Kay [er]
[rev to]c MAOHTAIC El TINA arltoy edaBleTe TH
[orevoa]utec o1 A’ attekpeiNalyro mpolc ayTo 10
[aAA ovJA €1 TINA AION AAMBAN[OVTWY TL]NEC H
3 [kovca]men * o Ae TrayAOC Trpoc ay[Tou]c * [ele tI OY
[eSarrlicOute * o1 Ae EAETON EIc TO [t]waNNOY
4 [Barr:]gma e1TreN Ae TrAYAOC TWANNHC EB[a]
[wrive]y BaTITICMa METANOIAC TW Aaw Aeralr] 15
[ets tov] EpYOMENON Mé[T] AYTON INA TriICcTEy[ew]
5 [ow rov]t ecTIN €1C TON THN akoylelantels de] 4;
[rovro eBamri]o@HCAN EIC TO ONOMA TOY KIv]
6 [nuwv iv Tov xi as alecin aMAaAPTIWN K[at]
[eriBevros avros Toly Tra[vAou xetpa] etre[re] 20
[sev @¥a TO ayov er avjroyl[s
1. Sanders originally read @ev for
g7v, but he has since seen the rnv
clearly. Apparently the scribe wrote
TIN and changed this to a ligatured
tH by adding an horizontal line in
which the ink is a little paler. Sanders
completed this line by supplying Ba)-
Aero ev Tats exkdn, but this gives a very
long line so that Badero rats exxdn is
a probable conjecture.
2. No line in the fragment as re-
constructed by Sanders has more than
34 letters, except this and the previous
line. This has 38, which suggests
that the word supplied at the end
may be wrong. But the dia- seems
certain, excluding dieXeyero, and no
acceptable suggestion has been made.
3. The & after Sdyyocm is quite
clear and shows that the papyrus
had the diadreyduevos of D. Sanders
however reads dia[Neyouer Jos emcdecxvus
rather than dia[Aeyouevos] Kay em-
dexvus with D, but it seems possible
that the traces of letters which he
reads as os are really kat.
4. Oedovi{os] is clear, but is an error
for 0éXovTos.
8 f. The reconstruction given is that
of Sanders. Since ua@yrais is certain
it is much the most probable sug-
gestion. It introduces the disciples
abruptly, unlike all other texts, but it —
is not really difficult to understand.
10. crevoalvres o de arexpevalvro
pols is the reading of Schubart and
of Wilcken in the privately issued
Bulletin of the Bezan Club, and is now
accepted by Sanders, except that he
thinks that the papyrus has 4’, as
above, not Ae. ;
11. Prof. Sanders supplies ovewy 7 in
- the space towards the end of the line.
It would also be possible to read over
zt, but the longer reading more exactly
corresponds to the length of the cer-
tain supplement in the line above.
19. The reconstruction given was
suggested by Prof. A. C. Clark. It
avoids the necessity of supposing
that contrary to his usual practice
the scribe here wrote out xpiorov in
full. From this point to the end of
the recto the lacunae are too long to
justify details of reconstruction. For
instance it might be er@evros avrocs
tov IlavAouv xelpas eweTecev TO TYAa TO
ayiov er avrovs... The one thing
certain is that the codex read é7
avrovs, not én avrois.
264 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
Verso
NO
MEER, EA Pes aethens, sues Sh anesae co danecs e ] etm Toye ACOENOYN([TAS]
[emede]pecOal: alto Toy xpwtoc coyAalpia]
H CIMIKINOI[@ KJat atTTaAAaccecOal alm aura]
[lac Nocoy[s Ta rT]e TTANTA TA TIONHPA €[k70]
13 [peve]colae eTEXELPJHCAN AE TINEC klar ex] 5
[Twy meprepxouerwlN ToYAaIWN €2[opKe]
[orwy ovoyasew er]i Toyc €XONT[as ra]
Trylara Ta TovjHpa Tlo o]JNoma Toy K{v inv]
ALeyorres] EZOPKIZOMEN YMac TON [7]
14 on [knpu]ccei 0 tTrayAoc EN O1c Kal y[toe oKev] 10
ia [F IovJaaroy TINOC apxiepewc HOLeEAy]
c4n [To alyto troiHcal E80c exonTec [efopxe]
ZEIN TOYC TOIOYTOYC Kal EICEAGO[rTES]
TTPOC AAIMONIZOMENON Hp2Za[yTo ere]
KAAEICOAl TO ONOMA AEFONTEC tTrlapayyed] 15
OMEN CO! EN IHyY ON TrayAoc oO [arocro]
15 Aoc KHpyccel EZEAOEIN atTOo[KpiOer]
A€ TO TINA TO TIONHPO[y exrev avrous inv]
[yleilvwokw kali toly mavdov emorapac]
16 [v] meus de riwelc ec[Te Kat epadopevos] 20
[o av@pwros e]tt afurous...
4. ravra seems clear in the photo-
graph, though Sanders prints 7v7a,
but as the suprascript line denoting
an abbreviation is also clear this is
probably a slip of the pen.
10 ff. The reconstruction of the
lacunae in these lines is peculiarly
difficult, as both in 10 and 11 the
obvious suggestions do not completely
fill the space, as may be seen by
comparing the corresponding places
in the recto. In 10 xnpv is three
letters less than the certain vro po
in line 10 on the recto, and in 11
the gap between .o and dav was
filled by Sanders with the single letter
v as against ovow 7 in the corre-
sponding place in the recto. Sanders
suggested that there was on the verso
a flaw in the papyrus which rendered
it unfit for use. This is possible, but
a rather desperate suggestion. An
alternative in line 10 is to restore
[xa xnpvlooec which fills the lacuna,
but this is, if anything, too long, and
gives an otherwise hos reading.
Line 11 is still harder. The iota at
the beginning is certain, but the
following letter might be an alpha or
anomicron. The reconstruction given
above gives the spelling of Scaeva
found in the codex Alexandrinus, and
the fragment of a letter visible after
the iota is consistent with an alpha
in which the pointed angle at the left
bottom corner has been chipped away
so as to give a rounder appearance
than usual. In the space between
the initial iota and the delta in covdacou
there is plenty of room for five letters,
but Sanders throws a little doubt
on the ¢ which has been supplied,
by pointing out that in papyri there
is often a gap left after a numeral,
which is also often a large letter (cf.
the Michigan fragment of Matthew in
the Harvard Theological Review, xix.
(1926) pp. 215 ff.). On the other hand
cov does not fill the space, asis shown by
the fact that the corresponding hole on
the other side of the papyrus covers at
least six letters, and probably seven.
MICHIGAN PAPYRUS 1571
Recto
MICHIGAN PAPYRUS 1571
Verso
XXII THE MICHIGAN PAPYRUS 265
That the general character of this text is Western is obvious at a
glance. It has all the paraphrases common to D and the margin of the
Harclean Syriac, as well as the interpolation in xix. 14. But in smaller
matters of wording and order it is not exactly the text of either of these
two Western authorities, as the following collation with Codex Bezae
clearly shows. ;
xviii. 28. tov “Inoodv eivac Xpurtév] Xpurrov eivar “Inoodv (cf. eivas
tov Xpiordv “Inooty sABHLP->)
xix. 1 f. etpov tivds pabyrdas fre pds avtods] erev tots pabntais
unattested.
2. ot dé rpds avrdv] of dé drexpeivavto pos adrdv unattested.
3. efrev 5é] 6 5¢ IlatAos rpds avrods unattested, but cf. etrév re
mpos avtovs HLPe, 6 dé efrev NA, elev Te B.
4, 6 Ilatdos] IlatdXAos c. SABHLPSo.
Xpiordv] tov “Incoty c. NAB, tov Xpucrdv Inootv HLPScs.
5. Kupiov| TOU Kuptov c. SABHLPSco.
6. avrois | abdtovs c. NABHLPSco.
12. xpwrds avros] Xpwtds unattested.
4 cal] 4. NABHLPS¢.
mvevpata Tovnpa| trvetpata Ta Tovnpda c. SABHLPS¢.
13. xvpiov] Tov Kupiov c. SABHLPS¢.
opxico | eLopkifoper, cf. 6pkifopev c. HLPSo.
IladAos Knpicoe| knpiooe 6 IatAos, cf. 6 TladAos xnpiooe
d Droge
14, om.’Iovdaiov] ins. Ilovdaiov c. SABHPSs.
tepéws] dpxepews c. SABHLPSo,
eixav] €xovtes unattested.
Tovs ToLovTous eopkifew] eLopKifey Tovs TovovTovs Harclean
Mg.
Tov SatmoveCopevov] SapoveCopevov unattested.
IlatAos] IlatAos 6 drécroXos unattested.
eLeAOciv knptocet] kynptooe e€eAOetv Harclean.
15. Tore daexpi On] amroxpiOev 5€ SABHLPS¢ Harclean.
16. els adtods 6 dvOpwros] 6 dvOpwros ex’ adrods c. NAB.
The most striking feature of this collation is the uniformly unim-
portant nature of the variants. With few exceptions they are either
quite unattested or are common to most manuscripts. That they are
1 In a text which is so largely reconstructed it is difficult to know what
variants may properly be cited, but I have tried to include only those which
are certain. Thus, silence obviously does not in all cases mean agreement
with D, and the text of the papyrus must be consulted whenever any question
arises.
The
character
of the text.
The papyrus
and the
Western
text.
266 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
not merely another way of cataloguing individual peculiarities of D is
shown by the fact that the Harclean margin when extant tends to agree
with D rather than with the papyrus, though it does not always do so.
That the papyrus has not been slightly corrected to a Neutral
standard is shown partly by its date, but especially by the fact that its
agreements with SAB etc. are all in small variants—the more striking
Western readings, both of the ‘ paraphrastic’ and ‘ interpolative’ types,
being all retained. In a corrected ms. it is usually the striking variants
which are changed, the small points which remain. In this connexion
it is highly significant that the unattested variants are mostly within
the Western readings, which have found no place in the Neutral text.
Their lack of support is natural enough; for we have no Greek witnesses
to the Western ‘interpolation’ except D and the papyrus.
This problem of the relation of the papyrus to the Western text as
a whole is of course the most important of those raised.
The Western text differs in its attestation from the Neutral in two
significant directions.
(i.) It is geographically more widely spread and chronologically earlier.
It is found in Carthage, Edessa, and Egypt, as well as in the unknown
home of Codex Bezae, and it was apparently used by every witness to
the text of Acts as well as of the Gospels in the third century, except
perhaps Origen and Clement.
(ii.) There is, in everything except general features, no such close
agreement between the individual witnesses to the Western text as is
found in the case of the Neutral text, or even more in the case of the
Ecclesiastical text. On small points D, the African Latin, the Old
Syriac and the third-century writers constantly disagree. In the text
of the Gospels we can, indeed, distinguish with substantial accuracy
between three phenomena: (a) ‘ Families’ of manuscripts which clearly
represent a single ms. Such are Family 1, Family 13 and Family I.
(b) ‘Texts’ where there is obviously an intimate connexion between
Mss. which are not, however, genetically connected. Such are the Neutral
text found in Mark in NBLAW 33, the Caesarean text found in
© 565 and their associates, the African Latin found in the Gospels
in Cyprian and & or in Acts in Augustine and the Fleury palimpsest.
(c) ‘Types’? of witnesses from which a definite text cannot safely be
1 So far as the Gospels are concerned Origen used sometimes the Neutral
and sometimes the Caesarean text (see ‘The Caesarean Text of Mark’ by
K. Lake, R. P. Blake, and S. New in the Harvard Theological Review, October
1928). In Acts he seems at least to have had many Western readings, but
it would be unsafe to say of him, as of Irenaeus, that he used a Western text.
Clement of Alexandria in the Gospels used a Western text, but in Acts seems
to show Neutral variants. However, he quotes Acts so little that it is rash to
speak very positively.
* Types is perhaps not the happiest word. My friend Professor Blake
suggests ‘phase,’ and the German Gestalt is possibly better than any English
word.
XXIII THE MICHIGAN PAPYRUS 267
reconstructed, though they are obviously connected.t Such is the
Western text, both in the Gospels and in Acts. It is not really Western
and it is not a text, but it is a ‘type’ of which early examples are
found in all the chief centres of the Church in the third century. We
see it in varying perspective, according to the source which we are
using ; we can approximate to but never completely define its readings.
To this Western ‘type’ the Michigan papyrus belongs. Its im-
portance is that it comes from Egypt, is earlier than any ms. of the
Neutral text, yet has a great amount of agreement with it in details.
If we suppose that the Neutral text is a third-century Egyptian revision
of an older text of the Western type, the Michigan papyrus is probably
the best example known of that subdivision of the ‘type’ used by the
reviser, who, as always happened, corrected the spectacular variants,
but retained the smaller ones. To put this supposition in another form,
in the Michigan papyrus and in B we have witnesses to two successive
forms of the Egyptian text. Thus in a collation of the papyrus with
D we would naturally have, as we do, a series of small agreements with
the Neutral text, and a complementary series of unattested variants
within the Western ‘ interpolations.’
The facts may be made plain by a more detailed consideration of Acts xix.
one passage from the papyrus. aie
Acts xix. 14-15
The Western Text according to
The Neutral Text the Michigan Papyrus
Hoav S€ twvos DKeva lovdatov év ols Kal viot oKev |
dpxepéws éxrd viot TodTo ia (¢ *Tov|Safov tuvds
Touobyres * droxpuBev € 7d apxvepews HOEAnTaY
mvetpa TO Tovnpov eimev Td av7Td mounoat, Bos
avTois, exovres eLopKifew
Tovs ToLovTOUS* Kat
eioeA Portes mpds
Satpovifopevov np&avTo
<: exixaAcio bat 7d dvopa,
Critical Notes on the Western Text éyovres * wie payyé NAopév
om ( D apxtepews] vepews D hI™® — grou év *Inood by HadAos
Tivos] Ties SA
oKeva.| oKevia A
exovtes]| evxav D (hl™*) 6 adréartoAos Knptocet
Tous ToLouTous eLopkiferv D e£eOeiv, dmoxpibev Sé
tov Saipovifopevov D TO rvevpa Td ToVNnpdv
amroxpiOev Se] tote arexptOn D eirev avtois, KTA.
1 That is to say, any reconstruction would necessarily have a large
apparatus with many variants within the text. This is really the criterion.
Family 1, and even more Family II, can be reconstructed so securely that in
the whole of Mark there is.no doubt about more than a dozen words (less
than that in Fam. II). A reconstructed Neutral text would have two or
three alternative readings in every chapter, the Caesarean text perhaps twice
as many; but the Western text would have variants in every verse.
268 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
The general difference between the Western type and the other
readings is obvious. The Western text has the framework év ois...
nOéEAnGav 7d adTd rornoat, Cos ExovTes TOs ToLovToUs eLopKiferv followed
by a detailed account of the exorcism—xai ciceAOdvtes pds Tdv Sai-
povifouevov npavto erikadcioOat Td dvopa A€yovTes TapayéeAAOpEeV ToL
ev Inood dv IlatAos knpiooe: eX Ociv. There are some minor variants
in this account, but the important variant is within the framework.
D reads €v ofs Kai viol YKeva Tivds tepews HOEAnoav 7d adTds Tovqoat,
the Harclean margin reads “in quibus erant filii septem Scevae cujusdam
sacerdotis,” etc., and the Michigan papyrus has év ofs kai viol...
"lovdaiov tivds apxvepéws, etc. Unfortunately it is not certain whether
the lacunae cover 2xeva érrd or not, though the balance of probability
is perhaps favourable.
Thus though the Western text type is unmistakable it varies in a
manner which cannot be accidental. The rival texts with negligible
variants read jjoav O€ Tivos Ykeva iovdaiov dpxrepews ExTa viol TovTO
movovvtes, and they continue, very awkwardly, droxp.Gev Se 75 rvedpa
TO movnpov eirev avTois.
The chief point to be noted is that the Western text tells a different
story from the Neutral. According to the latter the ‘sons of Scaeva’
are introduced as examples of the Jewish exorcists mentioned in the
preceding verse; according to the Western it was ‘at this juncture’?
(ev ois) that the sons of Scaeva wished to copy the Jewish exorcists.
Except in the Michigan papyrus it does not say that Scaeva was a Jew.
This reading appears to be the first Egyptian emendation, and due to a
misunderstanding which took év ofs as meaning ‘among whom.’ Once
this change was made it would inevitably appear that the long Western
reading was unnecessary repetition, 7d avré would naturally become
tovto, and the ‘ Neutral’ revision would follow quite naturally.
One final observation may be made: The very awkward dzoxp.év
of the Neutral text is not found in D, which reads réte arexpiOn, but
it does appear in the Michigan papyrus, where it is not at all awkward
but rather ‘ better’ Greek than the characteristic tote of D. Obviously
this fact supports the suggestion that the Michigan papyrus represents an
Egyptian form, slightly revised, of the Western text, and that this form
was the basis of the Neutral revision.
1 For this rendering cf. Luke xii. 1, Acts xxvi. 12 (xxiv. 187). These
show that év ols, meaning ‘at this time’ or ‘under these circumstances,’ is a
good Lucan idiom, though it is not very usual Greek. Its excuse would be
that no one in the first century would be likely to think that Scaeva could be
a Jewish priest, to say nothing of a high priest. Least of all would a writer
acquainted with Jewish customs have had such an idea in his mind. He
would not see how easily a more ignorant generation would inevitably connect
év ols with the Jewish exorcists just mentioned.
XXIV DUST AND GARMENTS 269
Notre XXIV. Dust anp GARMENTS
By Henry J. Cappury
The book of Acts contains a series of references to gestures involving
the use of dust, or of garments, or both. In spite of prolonged study by
scholars, and the inferences which may be drawn from the texts and con-
texts of the several passages, and the citation of parallels elsewhere, the
interpretation of these gestures remains without settled solution. It may
therefore be advisable to look at the passages collectively and separately,
and to tabulate and discuss some forms of explanation.
The passages are as follows :
(1) Acts xiii. 51 of Se éxriva€dpevoe Tov Kovioprdv TOV Toéa@v er
abtovs RAGov eis Kixéviov. The subject is Paul and Barnabas; the place
is Antioch of Pisidia. The Jews having “contradicted the things which
were spoken by Paul, and blasphemed,” were filled with jealousy at the
success of the gospel among the Gentiles, and “ urged on the devout women
of honorable estate and the chief men of the city, and stirred up a persecu-
tion against Paul and Barnabas, and cast them out of their borders. Butthey
shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium.”
This incident appears at first sight a literal fulfilment of the command
of Jesus to his disciples as recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. If Jesus’
command was known to the apostles Paul and Barnabas, that would
account for their acting so. In like manner if, as is certainly the case, the
injunction was known to the author of Acts, that would account for his
describing here the fulfilment. Luke, in fact, twice uses the expression in
his Gospel, once (ix. 5) at the sending out of the Twelve (a passage parallel
to Mark and clearly derived from Mark, though influenced by a like
passage in Q),' where Jesus commands: xal dco. av pa) déxwvTac tyas,
eEepxopevoe ard THS TOAEwS Exeivyns Kal? Tov KoviopToV amd TOV TOOOY
bpav arotivdooere ® cis paptupiov ex avtovs ; the other time (x. 11) where
Jesus, commanding the Seventy, tells them in such cases to go out into
the city squares and say: Kal Tov Kovioptdv Tov KoAANOEVTEA piv EK THS
ToAEWS DpOV eis TOYS Tddas GropaccdépeOa buiv. There are items in the
wording of these passages which suggest that Acts is really reminiscent of
them. Note that in Acts Luke has in characteristic fashion * retained
Mark’s verb extivdoow, while in the Gospel he changes it to drotiwdcow
(and dropdocopot). The phrase in Acts ém’ avrovs finds its explanation
in the Gospel parallels tuiv and «is paptipiuov ém aidto’s (Mark «is
paptupiov avtois).
1 The probable relation of the four passages is that Mark vi. 7-11 is used
in Matt. x. 1-16 and Luke ix. 1-5, and that Q is interwoven in Matt. x. 1-16,
and separately given in Luke x. 1-12. But both passages in Luke may
represent some conflation with the main source of the other one.
2 Om. xal NBCDL, ete.
3 drorwdocere NB, éxtwdiare D, arorwdtare ACLW, etc.
4 There are a series of items in Mark which are omitted by Luke in the
parallel, but reappear in Acts. See note on i. 7, Vol. IV. p. 8.
Acts xiii. 51.
Merx's
explanation.
Rabbinic
explana-
tions.
270 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
But what is the gesture, and what does it mean ? Merx* has suggested
that the dust of the feet means the dust which is stirred up by the feet
and clings to the garments. In this case the shaking would be of the
garments. But except for this passage of Acts, and possibly in Matthew x.
14,2 we have expressions like tov xotv® rdv broxdtw Tov rodév of Mark
vi. 11, tov Kovioprdv amd TOV Tod@v of Luke ix. 5, and most explicitly in
Luke x. 11 kai tov Kovioprdv Tov KoAANGEVTA. piv ex THs TOAEWS Eis TOUS
w6das. Unless the expression is purely figurative, as it would be in modern
speech, like our use of “ washing one’s hands of the matter,” it must
mean shaking dust off the shoes ‘ or feet.
Rabbinic commentators on the New Testament (Matt. x. 14), from
Lightfoot to Strack-Billerbeck, regard the gesture as indicating that the
city thus rejected is treated as the heathen. They cite the passages that
indicate that dust from heathen lands, even Syria, destroyed Levitical
purity, or that inculcate care to avoid imported vegetables, to burn
priests’ garments that have come in contact with dust derived from
heathen lands, or to blow off from the feet the dust of a field in which
human bones have been uncovered by ploughing. But the New Testa-
ment passages suggest that the act was not so much one of self-purification
as of warning to those left behind,® “a testimony unto them,” ® perhaps
1 A. Merx, Die vier canonischen Evangelien, ii. 1. pp. 178 f. on Matt. x. 14.
2 There is some good evidence (NC 33 syr sin, etc.) for reading xovtoprdév éx
Tav rodév instead of xoviopriv T&v wodév in Matt. x. 14,
3 yois for the classical xov.oprés is common in the LXX and thence also
Rev. xviii. 19.
4 Shoes or sandals are not mentioned in any of the passages, but I believe
that they, rather than the feet, were regarded as carrying defilement. Cf.
1 Kings ii. 5. Of course Q, unlike Mark trodedeuévovs cavddda, seems to have
included a prohibition of jrrodjpuara.
5 The gesture is explained by words of warning by the missionaries (Luke
x. 11 b) or Jesus (Q, Matt. x. 14=Luke x. 12). The best protestation to others
might be a solemn act of self-vindication, placing the responsibility on others.
Cf. Acts xviii. 6; Matt. xxvii. 24f. It might be equivalent toa curse. We may
note that in the Paris magical amulet (2316. 318 v.) the witch Backxavocivy
declares that she goes to shut up the seven sources of water, to burn off the
threshing-floor, to shake off dust (xovioprdv dmorwdéa), and to do other
malicious things. According to Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Paldstina, i., 1928,
p. 522, the customs continue both of shaking dust off shoes and clothes and of
shaking garments (cf. below). .
6 The meaning of eis wapripov adrois is not absolutely clear here, and is
‘much disputed in the other Marcan passages in the synoptic tradition, viz.
Mark i. 44=Matt. viii. 4=Luke v. 14; Mark xiii. 9=Matt. x. 18=Matt.
xxiv. 14=Luke xxi. 13 (where tyiy implies adrois). But I cannot enter into this
problem. For a recent discussion of the former see 8. Zeitlin, Revue des Biudes
Juives, |xxxvii., 1929, pp. 79 ff., and of the latter see F. C. Burkitt, Christian
Beginnings, 1924, pp. 145 ff. The early Acta Barnabae, 20, doubtless has this
passage in mind in saying rdv Komoprov Trav woddy éferwdiauey xarévavtTe Tod
iepod éxelvov, cf, 21.
XXIV DUST AND GARMENTS 271
of a dire fate threatening them. It would be strange indeed if Paul should
use against Jews who objected to his Gentile success a gesture that was
to be understood principally as the strict Jew’s act of purification against
Gentile defilement. The shaking off of dust might mean rather that the
missionaries clear themselves of all further responsibility for the im-
penitence of the doomed city. It might be done in anger or scorn, but
those are not the main elements. It was an act towards a whole city, not
towards individuals. We may note, finally, that it did not preclude a
subsequent return to Antioch (xiv. 21 f.) to strengthen the souls of the
disciples there. It might further mean ridding oneself of all that has to
do with the city. The departing missionaries not only abandon the un-
receptive city to its fate, but even avoid taking any vestige of it with them.
Luke himself in the Gospel adds before ‘ dust’ the climactic ‘ even.’ }
(2) Acts xiv. 14 dxotoavtes Sé of drdarodot BapvaBas cai IladXos,
SiappiEavres TA ipdria éEavtov eLerndynoav eis Tov dxAov, Kpd(ovtes KTA,
The actors are the same as before. The scene is Lystra. Upon the cure
of the lame man the natives have cried in their Lycaonian language that
Paul and Barnabas were gods, and are preparing to offer sacrifice to them.
Here even more certainly than in the previous passage, rabbinic testi-
mony seems to afford the explanation. The rending of garments is the
prescribed reaction against blasphemy. The rabbis have explicit regula-
tions as to the cases when garments so torn can be sewed up again. There
is also the requirement that the Sanhedrin, when hearing witnesses to a
case of blasphemy, all except the witnesses, must rend their garments as
the blasphemous words are repeated.
This episode in Acts also has its counterpart in the gospels when at
the trial of Jesus upon his admission of Messiahship we read, “ And the
high priest rent his clothes,? and saith, What further need have we of
witnesses ? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye?” Luke in
his gospel omits the rending of the garments and the reference to blas-
phemy. This is one of the cases where an item of Mark missing in Luke’s
parallel reappears in Acts in a different connexion.
But the rending of garments even in Jewish literature is by no means
1 The xai is certain at Luke x. 11, but is supported only by AHA...
min lat syr at ix. 5.
2 By a kind of naiveté the witnesses are exempted on the assumption that
they have duly rent their garments already—when they heard the original
blasphemy. Moed Katon f25b.
3 Mark xiv. 63 Sdiappjias rods xi7Gvas, Matt. xxvi. 65 dudppntev 7a iwdria,
using the more usual noun; but diappyyvume rods xirGvas occurs in the Apo-
crypha, Judith xiv. 19; Ep. Jer. 30; 2 Macc. iv. 38. Why the undergarments
rather than the cloak were rent, why the high priest who is forbidden to rend
his garments in private grief (Lev. x. 6, xxi. 10) is here permitted to doso, and
other questions, relevant to this scene but not to Acts, are discussed in the
commentaries on Mark and Matthew. It is doubtful whether claiming to be
the Messiah would be technically blasphemy at all; words against the temple
might be.
4 See above, p. 269, note 4.
Acts xiv. 14.
Acts xvi. 22.
272 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
limited to cases of blasphemy. It occurs in many passages in the Old
Testament of sorrow,’ especially of painful surprise. Perhaps not one of
the nearly fifty instances, not even Jeremiah xxxvi. 24, involves blasphemy.
There, and in a few other Old Testament passages, it may be regarded as
an act of protestation (e.g. Numb. xiv. 6). And it would seem that this,
rather than horror at blasphemy, was the meaning of the apostle’s gesture
at Lystra. It should be remembered, also, that in Hellenistic writings the
torn garments are found with bared breasts in cases of entreaty,® and in
cases of sudden irruption aiming to stop proceedings.‘ In the latter
connexion note here in Acts é£eriSynoav cis Tov 6xAov. A like gesture is
the tearing off or throwing off of garments. That occurs with sudden
acts of protestation or intervention.’ I believe diappyyyvup. sometimes
means to tear off clothes, just as it is used of breaking fetters and thus
loosening them.*®
(3) This interpretation at once brings us to our next passage in Acts, xvi.
22 kal cvveréotn 6 dxXos Kat adTav, Kal ot oTpatyyol TeppipicavTes
avTav Ta iudaria exéAevov paPdiferv. The missionaries are this time in
Philippi; because they have driven out from the ventriloquist slave girl the
1 The rending of garments has been discussed in the articles on funeral
customs of the Hebrews from the earliest times and was the subject of special
monographs by C. J. G. Heidenus (Jena, 1663), Chris. J. Schréder (Jena, 1705),
J.C. Wichmannshausen (Viteb. 1716). Doubtless the gesture is native in other.
groups also. Among the arguments used in the seventeenth century to
identify the American Indians with the lost Ten Tribes of Israel was their
agreement in this custom (Samuel Smith, History of New Jersey, 2nd edit.,
1865, p. 9).
2 The instances cited in Moed Katon f25b in answer to the question
** whence do we prove that the garments must be rent when the name of God
is profaned ?”’ are 2 Kings xviii. 37, xix.1. The Greek version uses B\acgdnuéw
in the context (xix. 4, 6, 22). Similar to the inappropriateness of using the
gesture of defilement in dealing with the Jews at xiii. 51 is that of using the
gesture of blasphemy in dealing with Gentiles. Cyril (Cramer’s Catena, ad loc.),
who feels it necessary to defend the use of a Jewish custom by Christians,
writes: @00s éoriv "Iovdalas érl rats kara Oeod Svopnyulats wepipynyvivat Ta ivaria
. . - Oedpdxacr Sé rodro Kal of Oeowéoior paPynrat Ilabdds te cal BapydBas.. .
éred) 5h Td Spwpevovy Svog>ynula ris Fv, Siéppnéav ra iwdria adrov wapadocect
"Tovdaixais kal éyypddors €Oecw dxoovOodvtes. Yet the Jews were careful not to
blaspheme Gentile gods. See Josephus as cited on xix. 37, Vol. IV. p. 251.
3 Herodian i. 13 roaira riva elrotca, pntauévyn re Thy éoOATa KT.
4 P Lips 37. 19.
5 I think some instances commonly used to illustrate Acts xvi. 22 (repi-
piyyvum) and xxii. 23 (jurréw) belong here, e.g. Ovid, Heroid. vi. 27 protinus
exilui, tunicisque a pectore ruptis; Dio Chrys. Orat. xxxv. p. 432 M. (Dindorf
ii. 42) de? wepipyniduevov éxmnday yuurdy eis rds dd0vs ; Capitolinus, incurrere in
parietes, vestem scindere, gladium accipere, quasi omnes, posset occidere ; Lucian,
De salt. 83, the spectators érjdwv cal éBdwv Kal ras éoOijras damreppirrouy (seé,
however, p. 277, note 5). ;
6 Luke viii. 29 dcappiocowr ra deoud (where pjoow =piyyvuut), and elsewhere.
XXIV DUST AND GARMENTS 273
so-called Python the mob has gathered, and they have been accused before
the strategi of disturbing the city and introducing customs unlawful for
Romans. The strategi tearing off ‘ their’ clothes bid them to be scourged
with rods. But whose clothes ? If those of Paul and Silas, then the matter
is not a gesture at all, but the first hasty and violent steps towards
scourging. This is on the whole quite probable. Wettstein gives at least
five passages (Plutarch, Dion. Hal., Livy, Valer. Max.) where, in connexion
with beatings by lictores, jéBSovyo1 (cf. Acts xvi. 35, 38), or brnpéerat, the
torn garments of the victims are mentioned.
But it is not impossible that the passage really means the clothes of
the strategi themselves. Having heard the charge they express their horror
and officious zeal by the violent ‘tearing off of their own garments. The
verb used is repipiyyvupt, while in all other Biblical passages Svappijyvupe
(rarely p7jyvvpt) is employed of rending one’s own garments. But there is
abundant evidence in Hellenistic writings that repipyyyvupu is used in just
this sense,} as well as of stripping others for chastisement.
Such an interpretation is not new, though it has been revived by Sir
William M. Ramsay.? It is not at all necessary for the passage, which
yields fair sense and accords enough with ancient penological practice
if understood of the stripping of prisoners for the lash. But in view of
the ambiguity of the verb and of the pronoun,® and in connexion with
the evidence of the interest in gestures elsewhere in the book of Acts, the
possibility that the strategi tore their own clothes is worth remembering.*
1 Plut. Public. p. 99 BE; De virt. mulier. p. 251 B. Cf. Wettstein ad loc. ;
Demos. xix. 197 (p. 403 Reiske) ; Polyb. xv. 33.4; 2 Macc. iv. 38. Josephus
uses the middle of wrep:piyyvusc in the sense of stripping oneself, e.g. B.J. ii. 15.
2, § 316 (cf. 322, v.1.); Antig. vi. 14. 6, § 357, xi. 6. 7, § 221 (for SiappHyrupe
Esther iv. 1, LXX), xviii. 3. 4, § 78; cf. Arrian, Anab. Alex. vii. 24. 3
mepipnéauévors (without any object, of horror or grief); Alciphr. iv. 4. 4 roy
XiTwvioKkoy Tepipniauévn TA pacrdpia Tots Oikacrats érédetas. But later Christian
writers use the active, Acta Thomae 63 (cited by Moulton and Milligan s.v.)
Thy écOijra wepiéppnia kal ras xelpas émlt Thy bY émrdraéa, and Cyril, as quoted
above, p. 272 n. 2, uses the compound in zep- in the active as equivalent
to that in éia-. In view of Luke’s independence in matters of voice in other
verbs it would be unwise to lay stress on his use of the active here. Cf.
Diod. Sic. xvii. 35. 5 and Charito of Aphrodisias, who used the middle of
mepipnyvuus With éo7j7a and even alone (like Arrian) as a gesture of grief, while
with decud he uses the active of diappiyyvums as does Luke (note 6, p. 272).
2 St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, p. 219, cf. 217.
3 It is possible, though not necessary, to give the rough breathing atrdév if
the garments are regarded as those of the strategi.
* Such confusion between actors occurs not only where our present text is
obscure, but probably elsewhere also through carelessness both in the earlier
and later stages of tradition. Examples of the latter, as when the short stature
of Zacchaeus is transferred to Jesus, are quite common. Of earlier confusions
in the material of Acts, perhaps due to such obscurity in sources as made it
possible for Luke (v. 29) to suppose that the dining with publicans in Mark ii. 15
was in Levi’s house, some few possibilities may be suggested. The first of these
VOL. V T
Acts xviii. 6.
Neh. v. 13.
274 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
(4) Acts xviii. 6 dvtiraccopevwv Se adtdv Kai BrAardnpotvTwv
extivagdpevas Ta twdtia elmev mpds attovs’ TS aiua tuov emt tiv
Kepadnv? Kaapods eya* ad Tov viv eis TA EOvN Topetoopat.
The scene is at Corinth, possibly in the synagogue (see verse 7), and
the actors are Paul the missionary and the Corinthian Jews. The gesture
is the shaking out of the garments. The verb used is the same as in
xiii. 51, and the passages have in common the unusual use of the middle
voice. In both passages the situation is alike, the familiar one in Acts,
of Paul turning to the Gentiles when rejected by the Jews. It would be
natural to connect the two gestures in meaning. To be sure, there is no
dust mentioned here, and the gesture is not of the feet, but the garments.
A. E. J. Rawlinson, who compares the two actions, says of this one:
“St. Paul shakes his clothes because he has already deposited his sandals
according to custom at the synagogue door.” + The context, however,
gives rather more than usual the interpretation of the gesture. Paul’s
words, “‘ Your blood be upon your own head. I am pure, henceforth I go
to the Gentiles,” is doubtless the author’s rendering of the gesture. More
plainly than the shaking off of dust it means ‘ washing one’s hands ’—
to use another figure—of other men’s guilt, and the turning it back upon
their own heads. The phrase ‘ Your blood be upon your head’ is almost
certainly here due to the Old Testament, where it is quite common. The
gesture also might be suspected of similar origin. But the shaking of
garments is nearly as little mentioned in the Old Testament as the shaking
off of dust.2. The parallel cited is Neh. v. 13, where again symbolic actions
are explained in words following: ‘‘ Also I shook out my lap, and said :
So God shake out every man from his house, and from his labour, that
performeth not this promise, even thus be he shaken out and emptied.”
The Greek verb in this passage is éxt.vdcow (ter), the noun is avaBody,
which would probably be understood to mean cloak. The Hebrew jxh
also has to do with garments. There is good evidence that the garments of
those who were executed were removed, but not so much reason for mentioning
removal of the garments of executioners as is done at the stoning of Stephen
(vii. 58, and the note Vol. IV. p. 85; cf. xxii. 20 and Vol. III. p. 407, note 2).
When Eutychus is raised alive after his fall it would be more natural to mention
that he tasted food (xx. 11), as does Jairus’s daughter and the risen Jesus, than
that Paul did. The uncertainty whether it was Paul or Aquila that shaved
the head in a vow at Cenchreae (xviii. 18) is notorious.
1 On Mark vi. 11 in the Westminster Commentary.
2 The gesture is not cited from the ancients in this sense. See in a different
connexion the examples of waving garments, p. 275n.2. I. Benzinger, Prot.
Realencykl. x. p. 525, speaks of the shaking out of one’s garment as a gesture
of the strongest detestation, still practised by the Arab to express his scorn.
But this, too, is different from the present passage. And there is also the
cabalistic Jewish custom of shaking the ends of one’s garment in the ‘ Tashlik’
ceremony on New Year’s day when sins are cast into the sea. The phrase eis
Thy Kepadiy (ojv, col, etc.) has in classical Greek some parallels, usually with
tpérw, e.g. Aristoph. Nub. 39 ; Plut. 526; Phalaris, Zpist. 102.
XXIV DUST AND GARMENTS 275
means either the bosom of the cloak or the arms. But the context seems
to imply shaking something loose. These considerations do not, however,
affect the possibility that the author of Acts is imitating the Septuagint
passage. But the interpretation of Paul’s gesture is not the same as
Nehemiah’s, and still lacks from extraneous sources any illumination.
(5) Acts xxii. 22 f. qxovov dé avtod axpt TovTou Tov Adyou Kai éExHpav Acts xxii.
Tv poviv adtrav éyovres: Alpe ard tis ys Tov Tovodrov, od yap ™*
Kabjkev adtdy (iv. Kpavyafovrwy te avtav Kal purtotytwy Ta ipatia
kai Kkovioptov BaXdXdvrwv eis Tov dépa exéeAevorev 6 ytAlapyos KTH.
The scene is Jerusalem. The actors are again Paul and hostile Jews.
He has just spoken of being sent by God to the Gentiles. This, as usual,
precipitates the murderous rage of his fellow-countrymen. Besides their
shouts the author mentions two gestures or gesticulations.
This passage is the last of our series—in many ways the most obscure,
most vivid, and most abused by commentators. It may be noted that it
cbmbines the two items used in gestures heretofore—dust and garments.
The context seems to suggest that these are gestures of anger and hostility,
but just why the inner feelings should take on such outward form is the
problem.
The casting of garments may be interpreted in several ways. It may
mean throwing off, and this may be explained as intended to show that
they were stripping themselves for action. One thinks of threatened
stoning. pizrw is used of throwing away arms in flight. It might be used
of garments.* A similar meaning was suggested above for dia- and
Tepipyyvupt. And at the stoning of Stephen this author tells us that
garments were laid aside (vii. 58 aréQevro, cf. xxii. 20). The throwing
of dust could be understood as a like mark of murderous intent. Though
it was thrown in the air, it was intended as a threat if not as an actual
missile * against Paul. In the absence of stones, or for fear of the soldiers
guarding Paul, only dust is used.
There are, however, various alternatives. The signs may not be
gestures of actual attack, but rather evidences of the excitement and rage
of the crowd. Commentators call it typically oriental* but cite no
parallels.> Preuschen is certainly as near the mark when he says: “ Fiir
das Aufwerfen des Staubes lassen sich keine Parallelen beibringen.”
It is in fact the recent commentators on Job that feel the most assur-
1 L. W. Batten in International Critical Commentary, ad loc.
2 Plato, Republic v. 474 A, is an excellent parallel, or Dio Chrys. vii. p. 103 M.
(Dindorf i. 114), cf. xxxii. p. 389 M. (i. 431).
3 Shimei in 2 Sam. xvi. 13, where LXX has r@ xo! rdoowr.
* Rackham: “ the ordinary oriental symptoms of excitement.”
5 An interesting description of a hippodrome is given by Gregory
Nazianzenus (Or. in laudem Basilii, xv., Migne, P.G. 36, 513 f.) Saep ody
mwacxovTas totw ldeiv wept ras dvriOérovs lrrodpoulas rods giAlwmous Te Kal
pirroeduovas, mnddow, Bodcw, ovpavge méurovor Kbviv, Hyioxotor KaOjpevor,
malovor Tov dépa rots Saxrédos, ws udorié. kTA. This passage is correctly quoted
from Gregory Nazianzenus by John of Damascus (Sacra par. 7. 31) but
erroneously ascribed by Wettstein to Gregory Thaumaturgus.
Job ii. 4,
Conclu-
sions.
276 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
ance about the interpretation of this passage in Acts. It is, according to
Jastrow,! reminiscent of Job ii. 12, where the three friends of Job when
they first saw him in his misery “ lifted up their voice and wept, and they
rent every one his mantle and threw dust upon their heads towards heaven.”
Buttenwieser following Weizsicker translates firtotvvrwv Ta iwarva ‘ rent
their garments,’ and adds that these acts are “‘ not an expression of wild
fanaticism, but rites customary under such circumstances. The object
is to avert from themselves the curse that is likely to fall on the blasphem-
ous: ‘ He who puts himself in a state as of one accursed will not be harmed
by the curse, having made himself immune against it.’ ” *
Such an interpretation of Acts xxii. 23 would bring our series to an
interesting conclusion, for then practically all the gestures could fall under
the same heading, avoidance and deprecation of blasphemy. Whether it
be the shaking of dust from the feet at Antioch, the rending of garments
at Lystra or Philippi, the shaking of garments at Corinth, or here the
gestures with both dust and garments, it is the old prophylactic of magic
against blasphemy that is always involved. The Jews count it blasphemy
for Paul to claim a divine mission to the Gentiles, Paul counts it blasphemy
for the Jews to reject the message, the Gentile praetors or strategi at
Philippi count Paul’s un-Roman teaching blasphemy, and of course Paul
and Barnabas shudder with horror at being worshipped at Lystra as gods.*
It must be admitted that if such an apotropaic purpose is the origin
of the gestures, neither the author nor the readers of Acts were probably
aware of it, certainly not in the instance at hand. For the proper gesture
for sorrow, and probably for blasphemy, was to rub dust, earth, or ashes
on the head. This is often associated with torn garments,‘ and if we are
to see this combination in Job we must suppose with Jastrow that the
1M. Jastrow, Jr., The Book of Job, 1920, p. 204. The same writer had
made an extensive study of ‘ Dust, Earth, and Ashes as Symbols of Mourning
among the Ancient Hebrews’ in Journal of American Oriental Society, xx.,
1899, pp. 133 ff.
2M. Buttenwieser, The Book of Job, 1922, p. 44, quoting Pedersen, Der
Hid bei den Semiten, 1914, p. 102. The Old Testament or Semitic civilization
in general was no poorer in gestures of disgust, aversion, etc., than it was in
vocabulary to correspond; cf. wag the head (Lam. ii. 15, Ps. xxii. 7), clap the
hand (ibid. and elsewhere), shake the fist (Zeph. ii. 15), pluck out the hair
(2 Esdras i. 8). But the reader of the English ‘throw dust in our eyes’ at
Num. xvi.¥14 should be warned that this is not a literal rendering of the
Hebrew idiom there.
8 It should be recalled that Greek writers in general and this evangelist in
particular use the verb P\acgpnuéw of evil speaking, not only against God but
against pagan gods (Acts xix. 37) and men (Luke xxiii. 39). Its use in the
context of Acts xiii. 51 and xviii. 6 has been already mentioned.
4 Josh. vii. 6; 1 Sam. iv. 12; 2 Sam. i. 2, xiii. 19, xv. 32; 1 Macc.
iii. 47, iv. 39, xi. 71; Josephus, B.J. ii. 15. 4, § 322. See the article in
JAOS. mentioned in note 1. It may be added that the evidence which Jastrow
gives from Egyptian monuments of the custom of putting dust on the head
could be greatly multiplied from recent illustrated publications.
XXV POLICY OF ROME TO JEWS 277
words ‘ towards heaven’ are a gloss. But in Acts certainly, and perhaps
in Job,! there is no doubt that the dust was thrown into the air. This
was scarcely with the object of getting it on to their own heads.
Still less likely is it that purrodvrwv? refers to rending garments. I
can find no authority for Weizsicker. It might mean casting off, as has
been said above, and nakedness rather than torn garments may be accounted
as a sign of mourning. A quite different interpretation of the verb remains,
however, to be considered. That is that it means ‘waved.’ This view
is at least as old as Wettstein,® and has been argued by Field, and is oe
in many modern translations and commentaries.
Field * admits that “there is no good example of this use of pewretv,”
but he thinks it was so understood by Chrysostom who paraphrases as
Ta iparia extivdaooovres, and there is a good deal of evidence that other
verbs like coBéw, dvaceiw, perhaps dvapurréew,® and in Latin iactare,
tactatio togarum are used of the applause of spectators.* In the present
scene one scarcely expects to find favourable applause, and whether the
gesture of waving garments, if that is to be thought of here, could connote
feelings other than approbation is not evident. It may be we can only
consider the gestures signs of excitement.
Note XXV. THe Poticy or THE Harty RoMAN EMPERORS
TOWARDS JUDAISM
By Vincent M. Scramuzza
The first authentic relation between the Roman government and the
Jewish commonwealth dates from the time of Judas Maccabee (165-161
B.C.). In his struggle to free Palestine from the political overlordship of
the Seleucids and the devastating encroachments of Hellenism, that
revolutionary leader made an alliance with the Roman senate and people.’
1 See, however, G. B. Gray’s philological note in International Critical
Commentary, vol. ii. p. 15. The Hebrew verb seems to imply casting in handfuls
as in Exodus ix. 8, 10, where we have the ‘ towards heaven’ as in Job, loc. cit.,
and in Greek the verb rdccw as in 2 Sam. xvi. 13; see p. 275, note 3.
2 In spite of old attempts to distinguish (iactare vs. iacere, etc.) I shall
assume that furréw means the same as pirrw, as I have assumed in the case
of -pyyvume and -pjoc(rT)w. See, however, J. H. Moulton, Grammar of N.T.
Greek, ii. pp. 257, 386; W. Schmid, Atticismus, ii. pp. 81 f.
3 It is not likely that it was invented by Wettstein, but I do not trace it
earlier. Wettstein explains the gesture as of approval: ‘‘ Qui longius aberant,
his signis testabantur, se cum illis facere, qui propius adstantes clamabant.”
4 Notes on the Translation of the N.T., 1899, p. 136.
5 Following Boissonade’s note on Aristaenetus, Hist, p, 580, editors
substitute dveppimrovy for dmeppirrovr in Lucian, De salt. 83, cited above, p. 272.
6 See Wettstein ad loc., and more fully C. Sittl, Die Gebdrden der Griechen
und Romer, 1890, p. 62, note 5.
7 1 Mace. viii.
The
Maccabees.
Augustus.
278 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
The Romans gave him no immediate help, but as friends and associates
of the revolutionaries they acquired one more right for interfering in the
confused affairs of the Seleucid empire, and, later, in the factional strifes
of the Jewish nation. When Pompey proceeded to systematize the affairs
of Syria and the East in general, his intervention in Judea was invoked
by both aspirants to the office of priest-king, the brothers Hyrcanus II.
and Aristobulus II., as well as by the people, whose ambassadors entreated
him that he would abolish the Hasmonean monarchy altogether and
replace it by the old theocratic constitution of the priests... Pompey
decided in the interest of Rome. He abolished the kingship, reduced the
area of the Jewish domains, and put an end to the independence of Judea
proper by making it tributary to Rome, and placing it under the super-
vision of the Roman governor of Syria (63 B.c.).2_ During the Roman
civil wars, the irrepressible Jewish factions, by taking sides with one or
the other of the contending Roman generals, or by allying with Parthia,?
were able to recapture for Judea a great measure of that national inde-
pendence * which it had lost since 63 B.c. By such means the monarchy—
this time dissociated from the high-priesthood—was once more revived in
the person of Herod the Great by the Roman senate, on the joint recom-
mendation of Antony and Octavian.*®
The politics of the Jewish commonwealth were by no means the only
problem Judaism thrust before the Romans. Other, and no less serious,
difficulties were created by the troublesome Jewish colonies in the provinces,
and in Rome itself. For instance, we know from Cicero that the Jews
of Rome, by their numbers and their craft, were able to influence the
political meetings of the Roman people and the decisions of the jury
courts.* We know from him also that the synagogues of Italy and the
provinces sent yearly to the temple at Jerusalem enough gold to cause
some Roman statesmen to fear lest the financial balance of the empire
be disturbed.’
To this manifold Jewish problem Augustus was to find a solution when
he emerged from the battle of Actium the undisputed master of the world.
The programme first worked out by him was followed by all the Julio-
Claudian emperors, except Caligula. What that programme was, and how
it was carried out down to the time of Nero, will be reviewed in this
note, which will take up—first, the affairs of Judea; secondly, those of
the Diaspora.
I
When Augustus began the reconstruction of the eastern provinces
(31 B.c.) he was faced with the alternative of re-establishing in Judea some
arrangement like that first introduced by Pompey, that is, administering
1 Jos. Ant. xiv. 3. 2. 2 Jos. B.J.i. 7. 6-7; Ant. xiv. 4. 4.
3 Jos. B.J.i. 13. 9-11; Ant. xiv. 13. 9-10.
4 On the later vicissitudes of Judea cf. Jos. B.J. i. 8. 2-5; Ant. xiv. 5. 2-4.
5 Jos. B.J.i. 14.4; Ant. xiv. 14. 4-5,
6 Pro Flacc. xxviii. (66-69). 7 Ibid.
_ XXV POLICY OF ROME TO JEWS 279
the country directly, or of leaving the status quo, that is, allowing Herod to
continue as king. He chose the latter course. The resourceful. Herod,
who had faithfully adhered to Mark Antony in the latter’s struggles against
Parthia and the young Caesar, found an adroit way of transferring his
allegiance to the new master.? Augustus, for his part, received him as a
friend. He not only confirmed him as king of Judea, but, on various
occasions, enlarged his domains by considerable additions of Jewish and
non-Jewish territories.*
Herod appears as the very man Rome needed at that juncture to safe- Herod.
guard her interests along part of the Syrian frontier, and keep the rebellious
sons of Israel well in hand. Fully aware that they hated the western
invader as profoundly as they had ever hated the Seleucids, Augustus
perceived that the Roman control of Judea through a vassal king of the
Jewish faith would be less troublesome and more effective than direct
administration. In Herod’s favour it could be said also that, as he himself
cleverly pointed out, he had showed by his loyal conduct towards Antony
that he could be an invaluable friend to Augustus. At the same time he
had proved that he fully realized he could reign only by the grace of Rome.*
By his record, then, he could be trusted. Besides, he could hardly be
surpassed as an intermediary between Judaism and Hellenism. For,
notwithstanding his show of orthodox piety,° he steadfastly fostered Hellen-
istic culture not only in the mixed areas of his realm,® but, in a lesser
degree, even in Jerusalem.’ Such a policy, needless to say, would recom-
mend him more strongly to the Romans. Thus between the emperor and
the vassal king there grew up a mutual understanding and trust which
ended only with Herod’s death. The frequency of their meetings shows
that Augustus had ample opportunity for guiding or, at least, seconding
1 The best work on the history of Judea at this time is by E. Schiirer,
Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, quoted in this article
by the pages of the 2nd edition. (See also H. Gritz, Geschichte der Juden
von den diltesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart, 11 vols., Leipzig, 1853-1876; and
H. Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 8 vols., Géttingen, 1843-1859; W. D.
Morrison, The Jews under Roman Rule, New York, 1890; S. Mathews, A
History of New Testament Times in Palestine, New York, 1904; J. 8. Riggs,
History of the Jewish People during the Maccabean and Roman Periods, New
York, 1900; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans ’ Empire Romain, 2 vols., Paris, 1914;
J. Felten, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 2 vols., 2-3 ed., Regensburg, 1925;
M. S. Ginsburg, Rome et la Judée, contribution a Vhistoire de leurs relations
politiques, Paris, 1928; Th. H. Robinson, J. W. Hunkin, F. C. Burkitt,
Palestine in General History (Schweich Lectures, 1926), London, 1929; H.
Dessau, Geschichte der rémischen Kaiserzeit, ii. 2, Leipzig, 1930, chap. xii. § 10,
pp. 706-831.)
2 Jos. B.J. i. 20. 1-2; Ant. xv. 6. 5-7.
3 Jos. B.J.i. 20. 1-4; Ant. xv. 6. 5-7; xv. 7.3; xv. 10. 1-3; Dio liv. 9. 3.
4 Jos. B.J. i. 20. 1-2; Ant. xv. 6. 5-7. Cf. Schiirer, op. cit. vol. i. p. 307.
5 Jos. B.J.i. 21.1; Ané. xv. 11. 1-6.
6 Jos. B.J.i. 21. 2-4 and 11-12; Ant. xv.9.53; xvi. 5.
7 Jos. B.J. is 21. 1-12; Ant. xv. 8; xv. 10. 4.
.
The settle-
ment of
Judea after
Herod.
280 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
Herod’s internal policies, and that the two were cordial, even affectionate,
towards each other.! Schiirer justly remarks that the unbounded confidence
Augustus had in him may be seen in his recommendation to certain
governors of Syria that they take counsel with Herod in all matters of
importance.’
It would appear that Herod shaped his internal policy with a view to
securing an unceasing flow of sympathy and approval from the Roman who
was past master in the art of divide et impera. His repeated offences
against the tenets of the Pharisees who at that time were in full ascendancy,
his persecution of the Sadducees, and his practical suppression of the
Sanhedrin where they had a preponderance, may have been partly carried
out with a design to show his suzerain that he was entirely detached from
the aims of the Jewish race. At any rate, it was clear that he felt no need
of relying on any of the Jewish parties, but rather on the support of Rome,
on the assistance of the Hellenistic counsellors whom he called to his court,
and on the protection of mercenary troops which he recruited from among
the Gentiles.t But despite this political attitude towards the Jewish
homeland, Herod contributed immensely to the realization of the unity
of Judaism. This is shown chiefly by his appointment of Palestinian,
Babylonian, and Alexandrian Jews to the exalted position of high-priest,
and by his untiring championing of the rights and aspirations of the Jews
of the Diaspora.’ This last policy of his became a cardinal principle with
his descendants, especially Agrippa I., as we shall see. His subjects, how-
ever, were not assuaged by such remote benefits. They felt that his rule
was oppressive, and they rebelled against him in the last months of his life.
The rebellion had a drawn-out and disastrous sequel, as it gathered new
impetus after the king’s death. To put an end to it, the governor of
Syria, Quintilius Varus, had to make two armed expeditions into Palestine,
but was at last able to re-establish order, thanks to his imposing forces and
his stern measures of repression.®
Meantime Augustus was studying the difficult situation. His main
problem was whether to continue the rule of the house of Herod, or yield
to the demands of the Jewish people to free them once for all from the
hated dynasty, and allow them to live according to their ancient con-
stitution—whatever that meant—under Roman supervision. The political
incapacity or insincerity of the Jewish leaders could not be more manifest.
For at the very time that their representatives were beseeching the
emperor for national liberty supervised by him, they rose against Sabinus,
the procurator whom Augustus had sent to govern the country pending his
final adjudication of the case. It was to quell this revolt that Varus made
his second Palestinian expedition. Evidently, even in the face of armed
opposition, Augustus thought that the Herodian policies, with all their
faults, were the best under the circumstances, since he brushed aside all
1 Jos. B.J. i. 20.4; Ant. xv. 10. 3. 2 Tbid.
3 Jos. Ant. xii. 3.2; xvi. 2. 3-5; xvi. 6. 1-8.
4 Jos. B.J.i. 33.9; Ant. xvii. 8. 3.
5 Jos. Ant. xii. 3.2; xvi. 2. 3-5.
6 Jos. B.J. ii, 5, 1-3; Ant, xvii, 10, 9-10,
XXV POLICY OF ROME TO JEWS 281
suggestions of reform and allowed Herod’s dynasty to continue to rule
Palestine. Complying with the king’s will except on a few minor points,
he gave Archelaus, the eldest son, Judea, Samaria, and Idumea with the
title of ethnarch, and the promise that he would get later the title of king
if he should prove worthy of it. Antipas received Galilee and Perea ;
and Philip got Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, Gaulonitis, and Iturea.
Both ruled with the title of tetrarch.*
Augustus’s faith in Archelaus was doomed to disappointment. After a
reign of nine years that inept prince was summoned to Rome to answer
a long list of grievances lodged against him by both Jews and Samaritans,
and was deposed. His principate was made a provincial administrative
district, in charge of a procurator of its own, over whom the governor of
Syria seems to have enjoyed a certain measure of supervision, at least in
matters of major importance.? Such is the story as told by Josephus.’
Yet Augustus may have had in view the defence of Syria against Parthian
machinations. We are led to this hypothesis from the coincidence that,
not many years afterwards, two other kingdoms, Cappadocia and Com-
magene, were reduced to the provincial status for the sake of defending
Syria. It is true that this measure was adopted some time later, in A.D.
17; but there is reason for believing that it had been advised by Augustus
himself.’ We know that the whole Syrian problem was considered un-
satisfactory in Rome, and for that reason Germanicus was dispatched
thither with extraordinary powers to work out a more suitable arrangement.
The other fact, that, after the death of Philip, Tiberius joined his tetrarchy
to Syria, would seem to point out that Augustus, in default of a strong man
of the type of Herod to rule Palestine, may have revised his plans and
reached the conclusion that the entire country had better be reduced to
the provincial status.
Archelaus,
It should not be imagined that the Romans’ direct administration of The pro-
Judea (A.D. 6-41), with the exception of the last two years of Caligula’s
reign, was a period of tyranny. The contrary seems to be true. A census
was taken early for the purpose of determining the rate of taxation.®
Henceforth taxes were probably lighter, since, on one hand, there was no
longer a royal court to maintain, and, on the other, the Roman governor
was of the equestrian order, that is, one of the second rank.’ The too
frequent depositions of the high priest, whose term of office should have
1 This paragraph is based on Jos. B.J. ii. 1-5 and 6. 1-3, and Ant. xvii. 8-11.
Cf. Luke iii. 1.
2 See Mommsen, Rémische Geschichte, vol. v., Berlin, 1885, p. 509, note 1;
O. Hirschfeld, Sitzwngber. der Berl. Acad., 1889, pp. 440-442 ; Schiirer, op. cit.
vol. i. pp. 380-381 ; A. Domaszewski, ‘ Kleine Beitrage zur Kaisergeschichte,’
in Philologus (Ixvii.), 1908, pp. 9-11.
3 BJ. ii. 7.3; ii. 8.1; Ant. xvii. 13-xviii. 1.1. Cf. Dio lv. 27. 6.
4 Tac. Ann. ii. 56. 4-5. Cf. Dio lvii. 17, 7.
5 Mommsen, Rém. Gesch. vol. v. p. 375.
6 Jos. Ant. xviii. 1. 1.
7 Tacitus says that “ provinciae Syria atque Judaea, fessae oneribus,
deminutionem tributi orabant ” (Ann. ii. 42. 7).
curators.
The
tetrarchies.
282 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY = norm
been lifelong, was probably the most patent infringement of the Jewish
constitution. This policy aimed at weakening organized national op-
position; yet the Romans did not inaugurate it, but inherited it from
Herod and Archelaus. The custody of the high priest’s robe by the Romans
was another act of suzerainty which violated ancient tradition; but in
this case also the Roman government continued a policy that had been
started by Herod. A further restriction of the high priest’s prerogatives
was the supervision of the temple’s finances by the Romans. But in all
other respects the national leadership of the high priest became a greater
reality, because, with the procurator living in Caesarea in deference to Jewish
sentiment, he was the only great authority in the holy city. Under the
new form of government, the nation “‘ had larger room to manage their
own affairs in their own way than under Herod.” The Sanhedrin became
once more the constitutional body governing the country,? as it assumed
the powers once wielded by the king. Local officials, now free from
Roman interference, became amenable to it. As of old, it had complete
control over the administration of civil justice, while its authority in
criminal cases was limited only in those instances in which it pronounced a
death sentence, for the execution of which the ratification of the procurator
was necessary. A great privilege granted to the nation was exemption
from regular military service.*
The provincial régime seemed degrading to the Jews, its mild character
notwithstanding. It was challenged while Augustus was still living by
a party of irreconcilables which may be termed the extreme left of the
Pharisees.» They repudiated the doctrine of passive resistance elaborated
in the days of Herod by conservative leaders such as Pollio and Sameas,‘®
who had taught the people that it was God’s will they should suffer under
vexatious rulers. The new school believed in action—open, organized,
ceaseless, violent action. Later on they took, or were given, the name of
Zealots.? According to Josephus it was these men who roused the people’s
anti-Roman passions to white heat, and led them, in a.p. 66, to armed
rebellion and to ruin.®
Augustus’s settlement in the tetrarchies continued unchanged for many
years. As both these political districts were inhabited by a mixed popula-
tion, Philip and Antipas found it advisable to make many concessions to
the Hellenistic spirit of that age. Nevertheless both princes befriended
the claims of Judaism, as may be seen, for instance, from their joint re-
monstrance against Pilate’s display of heathenish emblems in Jerusalem.’
1 G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, 3 vols.,
Cambridge, Mass., 1927-1930, vol. i. p. 82.
2 Jos. Ant. xx. 10. 1.
3 Cf. Schiirer, op. cit. vol. ii. pp. 160 ff.; and J. Juster, Les Juifs dans
Vv Empire Romain, 2 vols., Paris, 1914, vol. ii. pp. 133 ff.
4 Jos. Ant. xiv. 10. 6. Cf. Mommsen, ‘ Die Conscriptionsordnung der
rémischen Kaiserzeit,’ in Hermes, 1884, pp. 1-79, 210-234.
5 Cf. Jos. Ant. xviii. 1. 1 and 6. 6 Ibid. xv. 1. 1.
7 See Vol. I. pp. 425 ff. 8 Jos. BJ. ii, 8,1; Ant. xviii. 1.1 and 6.
® Phil. Leg. 38 (Mangey ii. pp. 589 f.).
XXV POLICY OF ROME TO JEWS 283
Philip, who seems to have governed with moderation, died in A.D. 33 or 34.
We have seen that Tiberius incorporated his territory with Syria. Caligula,
however, granted it to Agrippa, a grandson of Herod (a.D. 37), together
with the title of king.
The third of Herod’s reigning sons, Antipas, came to a sorry end. Antipas.
Tiberius allowed him to rule; but Caligula deposed him (A.D. 39),+ and
added his tetrarchy to the kingdom of Agrippa. Probably Caligula had
no other motive than simple friendship for his extraordinary favours to
Agrippa. Placed in:so high a position, Agrippa was to play an honourable
réle in the defence of the Jews in Judea and abroad. Two years later he
received from Claudius the remaining portion of Herod’s old kingdom.
Thus Judea from an insignificant provincial appendage became once more
the centre of a considerable Palestinian state.
A cardinal policy of Augustus, to which Tiberius adhered scrupulously, The Jews _
was the exemption of the Jewish race from emperor worship. The cult *7¢ worship
of the living sovereign, symbolic of the relations between him and his Emperor.
subjects, was not a new thing in the Roman empire. . It had been elaborated
in the Greek world, and had found universal acceptance. Since the
Roman government was republican, the Greeks as well as the barbarians
who fell under its sway worshipped the abstract goddess Roma. But
when Augustus grafted the principate on the trunk of republican institu-
tions, the provincials saw in his person the incarnation of the mighty power
of Rome. To all of them, who had been unspeakably oppressed, he
appeared as a divine agent who would save them from their long-standing
ills, and partly, although not principally, for that reason they, of their
own accord, worshipped him as a god. By a felicitous stroke of genius
Augustus fostered this universal feeling of the subject peoples. He
approved everywhere, except in Italy, the erection of statues and the
building of altars and temples to him as to a god, the institution of annual
feasts and other periodical celebrations, and the establishment of priestly
colleges to maintain his cult either jointly with that of Roma or else alone.
Participation in the imperial cult became early an outward sign of loyalty
to Rome and the emperor, and, in time, a test of political conformity.
All the subject peoples were bound to it, at least collectively at first, if not
individually. But this politico-religious requirement imposed no hardship
on their beliefs since the imperial cult did not exclude the worship of other
gods, even where these gods were national and had an ethnic and political
significance of their own.
In the case of the Jews, however, it was clear to Augustus that they
could not comply with the emperor’s cult, since their own worship of
Jehovah was of the most exclusive and uncompromising character. The
fact that none of our sources contains any references to difficulties in this .
regard between the first two emperors and the Jews would seem to indicate
that they had been exempted from the general law of emperor worship.?
1 Jos. Ant. xviii. 7. 2. It would seem that the foolish prince had entered
into a secret alliance with Parthia, and had actually begun to accumulate
provisions for a joint action against the empire.
2 Cf. Juster, Les Juifs, i. p. 353.
Tiberius.
Caligula.
284 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
In lieu of the common forms and implications of that cult, other forms were
allowed the Jews to give expression to the ideas involved in it without
doing violence to their scruples. Of course the substitute forms were
obligatory for all the Jews. In common with the other subject peoples
they took an oath of allegiance to the emperor on his accession to the
throne and at other stated times.1 And if they did not sacrifice to him,
yet they sacrificed for him twice a day in the temple, and more solemnly
on special occasions.? If it is true, as Philo maintains, that the victims
for those sacrifices were provided by Augustus himself,? we may see in
that a tacit acquiescence of the first emperor in what was indeed a dis-
pensation to the Jews from the religious-political test required of all other
provincials. Outside of Palestine they prayed for him in their synagogues,
and, if they could not erect temples and statues to him, yet they dedicated
their synagogues in his honour, and placed therein tablets, wreaths,
shields, and standards, and had recourse to various other symbols, to
express their devotion to him.*
Several events during the reign of Tiberius reveal that that emperor’s
policy towards the religious sentiments of the Jews was modelled upon that
of Augustus, that is, was one of extreme tolerance. His order to Pilate
to remove from the praetorium in Jerusalem certain votive shields to which
the people objected *; his removal of the same official based on the latter’s
cruelty to a band of religious fanatics *; the return to the high priest of
the precious vestment which had been in the possession of the Roman
procurator since the annexation of Judea in a.p. 67; and the delicacy
of the governor of Syria, Vitellius, in causing his legions to march from
Antioch to Petra by a roundabout route, lest the sight of their standards
should give offence to the Jews * ;—all these acts bear an unmistakable
mark of studied consideration and respect for the religious beliefs of the
Jewish subjects, and, we may state, fidelity to the conciliatory programme
of Augustus.
Caligula broke away from this policy of toleration which had worked
well. He attempted to install his statue in the temple, and force the
whole nation in and outside Judea to recognize his divinity, which,
strange as it may appear to us, he took quite seriously.® His order to
that effect plunged the whole Jewish world into a state of extraordinary
ferment. There would have ensued dire consequences in Judea but for
the prudence and skill of the governor of Syria, the tolerant and sym-
pathetic Petronius, who had been charged with the execution of the
emperor’s order. The situation was opportunely saved by the murder of
1 Phil. Leg. 32 (M. ii. 580); Jos. Ant. xviii. 5.3. See also xvii. 1. 4.
2 Phil. Leg. 32 and 45 (M. ii. 580, 598).
3 Ibid. 23 (M. ii. 569). But see also Jos. C. Ap. ii. 6.
4 Phil. In Flacc. 7 (M. ii. 524). Cf. Juster, Les Juifs, i. pp. 339-354.
5 Phil. Leg. 38 (M. ii. 589 f.). 6 Jos. Ant. xviii. 4. 1-2.
7 Ibid. xviii. 4. 3. 8 Ibid. xviii. 5. 3.
® Phil. Leg. 11-15 and 25 (M. ii. 556-561 and 569); Jos. Ant. xviii. 7. 2;
Dio lix. 26 and 28.
XXV POLICY OF ROME TO JEWS 285
the tyrant (January 24, a.p. 41), which was hailed by the Jews everywhere
as a clear intervention of divine providence.
The accession of Claudius marked a new era of goodwill, one might Claudius.
perhaps say of imperial redress, to the Jews everywhere. Claudius, who
took Augustus as his model in the conduct of government, adopted in
regard to Palestine a policy which reproduced at once the outward marks
and the informing spirit which existed under Augustus. We have seen
that he ended the direct administration of Judea, and re-established the
old Herodian kingdom in its whole extent. From the Roman point of view
this was good politics, as it meant retreat with honour from the dangerous
position taken by Caligula. Indeed, the grant of independence under a
king of their own was calculated to pacify the roused nation. To say Agrippa.
that Claudius restored to Agrippa his grandfather’s kingdom simply as a
reward for Agrippa’s activities in placing him on the throne of the Caesars,
is telling only a small part of that story. The two men had been reared
together in Rome, and knew each other well. Agrippa, with his Jewish
faith and blood,? his great ability, his mild character and attested piety,
his proved patronage of the Jewish cause everywhere, and his loyalty to
Rome,’ was the ideal man (as Herod had been under Augustus) to bridge
the chasm which had been created in Judea by the incapacity or the
insolence of some of the Roman procurators, and still more by the sacrilegious
attempts of the insane Caligula. We have no proof for asserting that
Claudius outlined for his vassal king a policy of conciliation, but we may
scarcely doubt that such was the case.t The emperor took the first pro-
pitious occasion to declare, mainly for the benefit of the Jewish world,
that he would not offend his contemporaries by posing as a god.*° Briefly,
Claudius and Agrippa followed a common programme which consisted in
working concertedly for the re-establishment of those peaceful relations
between the suzerain and the subject race which existed under Augustus
and Herod.* On one side, Claudius issued a number of decrees favourable
to the Jews of the homeland and the Diaspora.’ Agrippa, on the other
1 Jos. Ant. xix. 1. 2.
2 According to Deut. xxiii. 8 the descendants in the third generation of
those who had embraced the Jewish faith were full-fledged Jews. Cf. Schiirer,
Geschichte, vol. i. p. 465, n. 27.
3 He styles himself Baciheds girddxaroap edoeBhs kal Piiopwuatos. See Le Bas
et Waddington, Voyage archéologique, Inscriptions, t. iii. partie i. no. 2365.
4 When Claudius appointed two other kings, one over the Cherusci, the
other over the Parthians, he outlined for them the course of action he wished
them to follow. His speeches on both occasions have been preserved in rhetorical
paraphrases by Tacitus (Ann. xi. 16; xii. 11). Josephus has an account of
the discussion between Claudius and Agrippa for the settlement of the Jewish
question in the Diaspora (Ant. xix. 5).
5 Claudius’s letter to the Alexandrines, line 49, in H. I. Bell, Jews and
Christians in Egypt, London, 1924, p. 24.
6 Keim (in D. Schenkel, Bibellexicon, iii. p. 55) and Schiirer (Geschichte,
vol. i. p. 469) agree that Agrippa ‘‘ was a careful imitator of old Herod.”
7 Jos. Ant. xix. 5. 2-3; xix. 6. 3.
The pro-
curators
after
Agrippa.
Nero.
286 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY NOTE
side, inaugurated a government that must have been satisfactory to the
greater number of Jews, as may be gathered from the pietistic praises of
Josephus ? and the Talmud,? and the hearty co-operation accorded him by
the Pharisaic party.®
Unfortunately Agrippa’s untimely death ruined Claudius’s hopes of
establishing lasting peace in Judea. As his only son was a minor, seventeen
years old, the emperor deemed it too risky to entrust the turbulent state
to a regency, but, instead, placed it anew under direct imperial administra-
tion. Thus Claudius, after having followed the earliest Jewish policy of
Augustus, followed also his latest one; namely, that which had made
Judea a province when no Jew could be found strong or wise enough to
rule it. At the same time Claudius took pains to make the new measure
less distasteful. He forbade Marsus, the bellicose governor of Syria, who
twice had crossed Agrippa’s path, to enter Judea ®; and appointed over
the sulky country excellent procurators who, by patience and kindliness,
kept it at peace. At the same time he restricted procuratorial interference
by returning once more into the keeping of the Jews the high priest’s robe.
He also transferred to Agrippa’s brother, Herod of Chalcis, and after his
death to Agrippa II., the right to appoint the high priest and supervise
the administration of the temple.? Again, he removed from office and
punished the procurator Cumanus because he had offended the people.®
The appointment of Felix was undoubtedly a bad one, if we judge it from
the state of near anarchy into which he allowed Judea to sink. Neverthe-
less in passing judgement upon Claudius’s responsibility for sending him to
that country, one should not forget that the appointment was made at the
request of the high priest Jonathan,’ and that the procurator’s wrongs
were acts of omission rather than commission. One wonders what pro-
curator could have proved successful in a country where the Zealots had
been teaching a whole generation that relentless opposition to the Roman
government was willed by God. The appearance of organized guerrilla
warfare forced Felix to resort to acts which appeared unduly cruel to the
excited populace, and, in turn, increased the fury and influence of the
Zealots.?°
The government of Nero made the mistake of allowing Felix to continue
in office. That was due to the influence of the latter’s brother, Pallas,
the powerful secretary of the treasury. In the main, Nero followed the
Jewish policy of his predecessor. We know, for instance, that in a violent
quarrel between the Greeks and the Jews of Caesarea concerning local
citizenship, he gave a decision adverse to the Jews, along the lines established
by Claudius in a similar case at Alexandria. But on several occasions he
1 Jos. Ant. xix. 7. 3. 2 Mishnah, Bikkurim, iii. 4.
3 Mishnah, Sota, vii. 8. Cf. Schiirer, Geschichte, vol. i. pp. 464 f.
4 Jos. Ant. xix. 9. 2. 5 Tbid.
6 Jos. B.J. ii. 11. 6. 7 Jos. Ant. xx. 1.
8 Jos. B.J. ii. 12. 3-7; Ant. xx. 6. Cf. Tac. Ann. xii. 54. 7.
® Jos. B.J. ii. 12.8; Ant. xx. 8. 5.
10 Jos. B.J. ii. 18. 2-3; Ant. xx. 8. 5-6. Josephus places the rise of the
Sicarii against this background,
sie POLICY OF ROME TO JEWS 287
showed them favour, if for no other reason than to please his mistress
Poppaea who seems to have been a proselyte.1 Possibly the rapacity of
his procurators may have had his connivance, as he himself, to secure the
stupendous sums he needed for his extravagances, was engaged in extra-
ordinary acts of extortion. Josephus relates that it was an act of procura-
torial extortion, coupled with the emperor’s settlement of the Caesarean
question, that acted as the proverbial match applied to a powder magazine.?
In conclusion, it may be said that ancient and modern historians are too
prone to accuse the Romans of oppression.* Certainly no one can deny its
existence ; but ultimately the responsibility for the disastrous war which
ruined the Jewish nation lay in the dangerous doctrine of the intervention
of God who would deliver his people from the sacrilegious foreigner. By
keeping the masses in a feverish state of expectancy, that doctrine made
pacification impossible. Worst of all, it lent itself to abuse by all sorts
of cranks and rascals.* :
II
For one reason or another, the Jewish population scattered throughout The
the empire gave much concern to every emperor in the first century of —“?°™
the Christian era.® As their colonies literally dotted the eastern portion
of the empire, and were found also in every country of the west *; and as
every Jew, with rare exception, held himself uncompromisingly aloof from
the natives, clashes often arose between the two elements. We are told
that Mithridates took from the island of Cos eight hundred talents belonging
to the Jews of Asia.” This story, together with Cicero’s statement in
regard to the huge tribute the Jewish colonies of the Diaspora sent to the
temple at Jerusalem every year, affords us some idea of their numerical
strength, if not of their economic well-being. The figures of the Jewish
popu